J. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, Vol.

31(3) 227-249, 2002-2003

ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING:

RELATING THEORY TO PRACTICE

MERCEDES FISHER
Pepperdine University, Malibu, California

ABSTRACT
Educational institutions have rushed to provide online courses; however, too
often schools have discovered the difficulty in transferring effective teaching
strategies in the classroom to an online environment. A unique aspect of
quality online courses is how they rely heavily on effective collaboration to
create a meaningful learning environment. Unfortunately, online instruction
is not as simple as replicating the community atmosphere that is found in
the traditional brick and mortar classroom. New strategies are demanded
for the successful transfer of knowledge utilizing the Web. Investigating the
pedagogical strategies of a program that promotes dialogue and collective
intellect in a community model could benefit faculty designing courses. We
will present a detailed case study using a mixture of quantitative and quali-
tative methods (including observation, focus groups, transcripts from syn-
chronous and asynchronous discussions, surveys, and interviews) collected
over a two-year span to identify perceptions of effective online collaboration
and performance. Community formation, support, and sustainability are also
explored. Examples are included that not only describe what participants
perceive as enabling aspects of the support system but also ways in which
educators can enhance program development by learning from other pioneers
in this area.

Making changes to how we interact with students or business colleagues and

developing a more collaborative, community of learner approach will have a
major impact in what we do with or without technology.
When a friend told me of her participation in an online master’s degree
program at Pepperdine University, I sort of laughed. About to graduate from

227
Ó 2003, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
228 / FISHER

Yale University with a double major in business-sociology, I saw myself as a

little better and smarter than someone taking online courses. Having enjoyed
group projects during my undergraduate years, I decided to give it a try. What
I did not recognize was that the social construction of knowledge from online
learning communities provided me with great opportunities. It basically
served as training for networking with people and helped prepare me for my
future career.
I started in a cadre/community at the start of the program, soon became a
leader for many projects. Then, I started to integrate these ideas in my
workplace and was promoted.

These comments echo the enthusiasm of students in the Online Master of Arts
Educational Technology program at Pepperdine University. Pepperdine is a
leading edge program that promotes dialogue and collective intellect in a
community model.
The program revolves around cadres of 20-25 people from various worldwide
locations. Cadre members come together online to explore and examine course
content, share their viewpoints of the material, develop ideas, and create solutions
all with the single purpose of learning from each other. When compared to
traditional face-to-face classroom instruction, students find Web based learning
an authentic learning experience that fosters productive interaction between
students.
The major push for developing the program came as a result of increasing
enrollment, growing a more global student base, and the desire to maintain solid
human interaction. The online program was found to be just the “tool” to develop
learning communities that broadened the base of qualified candidates for the
program. The program was designed to have a faculty mentor assigned to a
specific cadre with the intent of providing assistance with students’ motivational,
conceptual, and organizational needs. “Trying to develop students is more than
just a passive activity for me. Part of my job is tapping a student’s shoulder to
encourage social activism in the workplace and a more assertive rote in fostering
change in their practice.” The cadre’s faculty mentor is referred to as Cadre Padre
or Cadre Madre.
For example, one student was very good with relating to at-risk teenagers
and with the cadre mentor complimenting the student on her work, using current
technology, the suggestion that she consider applying for a technology teaching
job at the high school was made. She eventually came around, took the challenge,
and has turned out to be one of the most effective teachers in the school.
Recently there has been a tremendous increase in interest with online learning.
“Online Learning,” has become the latest buzz word to promote a variety of
online courses. As with face-to-face classroom settings, not all courses are created
equal as there is a variation in the skills of those instructors.
Previously, as an instructor in another educational institution using collab-
orative groups in asynchronous environments, I was dissatisfied with the results
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 229

because of the lack of depth in discussions and critical thinking. After accepting
a position at Pepperdine University, the possibility for a more spontaneous,
collective kind of action in synchronous class discussions became apparent. From
the position of instructor, I strive to find ways of designing and discussing material
that sheds light on the possibilities of the material being discussed.

SYNCHRONOUS AND ASYNCHRONOUS

DISCUSSIONS
Students in the Master of Arts in Educational Technology (OMAET) program
are required to participate in both asynchronous discussions and synchronous
online discussions. The asynchronous discussions are centered on open-ended
questions and statements that are posted for response from the students. A simple
agree or disagree without foundation support is not acceptable. The student is to
draw from the material being reviewed in the course and from their own life
experience in responding to statements and questions.
In addition to their response to the original newsgroup questions, the student is
required to read and consider what other students have posted in the newsgroup.
They are also required to post their response to other student’s statements. This has
an effect of creating an open dialog among students because they are filtering the
information through their own life experience. What is key to note here is that
although the instructor has posted the statement and/or question, it is the students
who guide each other in coming to a general consensus of understanding the
material. In contrast to a traditional classroom approach it is the instructor who
leads and moderates the discussion.
It is also interesting to note that the instructor has less influence in directing
students to a specific analysis and/or conclusion of the material. If the instructor’s
intent is to instill a specific interpretation of the material, a traditional approach
would be more useful. On the other hand, if the desire is to have students learn
how to acquire and assimilate information and then process the information
into useable knowledge, the Pepperdine approach is preferable.
In addition to asynchronous Netscape newsgroup discussions, students
participate in prearranged online discussions using synchronous technology,
www.TappedIn.org. A cadre is given the choice of selecting which day (as a
group) is best suited for them to meet online. Once the day is selected they are then
asked to select two different one hour periods during that day so every cadre
member will have an opportunity to attend one or the other of the online meetings.
When the student arrives for a Tapped In session they meet in the instructor’s
online office. Tapped In class discussions are unlike a face-to-face classroom
discussion in that a student does not wait to be called on in order to participate in
the discussion. The format is free flowing and allows the students a rapid exchange
of ideas and insights into the material being discussed. The advantage that
Tapped In provides the student, that isn’t provided in the newsgroup, is the
230 / FISHER

challenge to think on one’s feet—so to speak. Newsgroups, on the other hand,

allow students to deliberate at length before posting their response. In addition,
Tapped In provides a transcript of the entire session, which is e-mailed to the
student and instructor at the conclusion of the session. The transcripts provide
additional feedback on their participation as well as to provide the instructor an
opportunity to review students’ participation during the online session.
Pepperdine finds the Tapped In session a vital component in providing a
challenging atmosphere for the student. The authors consider any distant learning
program that fails to provide real time discussions a less effective program. We
make this assertion based on the requirements and expectations of college and
graduate school students that they be able to acquire, assess, understand, and then
make decisions in those situations that require immediate action. That in part is
the value of a higher education degree and failure to provide that to students
robs the student part of the value of higher education.

BUILDING A PORTFOLIO
In addition to synchronous and asynchronous online discussions, Pepperdine
students are, also given the responsibility of creating, building, and maintaining
their own Web site. Since one of the challenges of online learning is how to verify
individual success, evaluating each student’s Web portfolio is an efficient means
of measuring student performance.
The emphasis on a student’s Web site is placed on content, clarity, and usability
rather than flashiness. As the student moves through his/her courses, they
document their progress in narrative form accompanied with audio, graphics, and
video. A good deal of journaling is required, which encourages students to reflect
on the skills, knowledge, and practices that they have acquired from the program.

THE LEARNING COMMUNITY

In today’s technologically rich environment, schools across the nation scramble
to keep up with the latest technology trends. The implication is an increased
demand for acceptable methods of material distribution using the Web. Educa-
tional institutions have rushed to provide online courses; however, too often
schools have discovered the difficulty in transferring effective teaching strategies
in the classroom to an online environment.
A unique aspect of quality online courses is how they rely heavily on effective
collaboration to create a high impact learning environment. Unfortunately, online
instruction is not as simple as replicating the community atmosphere that is found
in the traditional brick and mortar classroom. New strategies are demanded for
the successful transfer of knowledge utilizing the Web.
One such strategy that has acknowledged the vital social aspect of learning and
reflects the thinking of many social and cognitive psychologists is the “learning
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 231

community” model [e.g., 1-11]. In this model, the class group takes all of its
courses together throughout a program enabling both inter and intra relationship
building to take place. Coupled with a faculty mentor who works more as a
learning consultant rather than that of a traditional classroom teacher, it creates
a strong sense of collaboration and interactively. In essence, a “community.”
A community, in its traditional form, is created by social subgroups. It creates
the basis for the learning community concept. As part of full membership into a
group there are two implied requirements. The first is an ability and interest in
participating with the rest of the community. Second, becoming immersed to some
degree with the activities of the group. In addition, membership to the community
frequently brings with it a lexicon unique to that which distinguishes its members
and reinforces a sense of belonging to the group [12].
There is no one standard for developing a learning community. Unlike the
traditional classroom setting that generally adheres to a rigid routine, students are
encouraged to map out their own course for self-discovery and enlightenment. One
of the major shifts that take place in the environment is that the student’s role is
no longer passive like that of a passenger on a cruise ship with the instructor
piloting the ship. In fact, “. . . community model learning environments demand
collaboration” [13]. Rather, in this environment students find themselves in the
position of the pilot, actively participating in steering the course to knowledge,
while the instructor takes on the role of navigator whose mission is to assist the
students in establishing a destination and goal.
This case study examines what constitutes online learning communities, why
they can be effective, and how to construct a knowledge strategy around them.
This graduate program model is not the typical computer-based training to which
people have been accustomed. Rather, it is a self-driven, interactive learning
experience in which students personally engage in the formation of their
knowledge.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY

This study is specifically aimed to help educators understand the impact and
implications of the elements and strategies for collaborative learning in courses
utilizing Web-based educational technology. We would like to draw upon
Pepperdine’s OMAET program and how it works to define learning as identity-
formation in professional communities. The program’s focus on “action research”
creates community related to their workplace in authentic ways.
Using the Pepperdine example, we attempt to present a detailed case study using
a mixture of qualitative methods (including observation, focus groups, transcripts
from synchronous and asynchronous discussions, and interviews) collected over
a two-year span to identify perceptions of effective online collaboration and
performance. Community formation, support, and sustainability are also explored.
Examples are included that not only describe what participants perceive as
232 / FISHER

enabling aspects of the support system but also ways in which universities can
enhance program development by learning from other pioneers in this area.
Both instructors and students prosper when instructors initiate and facilitate
their learning environment with dynamic communication methods to foster
and support student-to-student communication and collaboration. Specifically, it:
1) aids college faculty in designing courses; 2) guides teachers and corporate
trainers in integrating educational technology in Web courses; and 3) helps
develop Web-based materials for online training. Our goal is that educators will
benefit by developing an awareness and knowledge of the capabilities in online
teaching when utilizing a collaborative learning environment.

BUILDING THE CASE FOR COMMUNITIES

The University of Virginia explores the online community and its rationale is
neither for efficiency or cost savings, but rather “. . . the creation of a richer and
more diverse experience than would otherwise have been possible” [14]. At
first blush, the suggestion of developing a richer and more diverse experience
through online communities seems counterintuitive, which would be expected
from the uninitiated. However, upon closer examination, a clearer perspective
may be formed.
We humans are social by nature and learn readily from one another. One could
argue that peer pressure is a form of learning that attempts to modify behavior so
we will function as part of the group. A strong argument for the natural need for
a community is that an individual joins a group when there is a common interest
that bonds them. One does not have to look very far to see how in their own
lives they have participated in a community in one form or another their entire
life. An online learning community encourages such relationship building as
reflected by one student’s comment, “I have better rapport with my cohort
members than I ever did in the traditional classroom setting” [13].
As Yvonne Andres argues, “To be successful, young people need these collab-
orative school-to-work skills. . . . Collaborative learning must be taught, and
the Internet can be a remarkable teaching tool” [15]. A great deal of time in
high school is spent learning the facts and little time is spent discerning the
facts. Many college systems today have addressed the problem by requiring a
critical thinking course as part of the curriculum.
What we have failed to accomplish in the classroom many educators believe can
be accomplished by the Internet. William Perry, Jr. found incoming college
students believed facts were unchanging and handed down by authorities. By the
time the students were ready to graduate they had come to believe that knowledge
is discovered and reasoned out [16]. If Perry is to be believed, it is reasonable
to conclude that the graduating students had come full circle from the time
before they entered their schooling experience to the time that, for many, is
the conclusion of their formal education.
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 233

It is interesting that Perry connected the shift of learning from incoming

to graduating students as necessary for the development of critical thinking
skills. He found that: 1) students ceased to be memorizers and developed critical
thinking skills; 2) there was a transformation in the student’s philosophy as to
the nature of knowledge in regard to the student/teacher relationship; and 3) there
were stages involved with the shift and students accepted and rejected instructions
differently at each stage and that the instructor’s effectiveness was altered at
each stage [17].
From Perry’s results we can see that the student as a member of a learning
community affects more than just his knowledge base. Clearly the student’s
ability to utilize the information in a critical way is enhanced, and furthermore
refutes the myth that knowledge is unchanging and delivered by authorities.
In addition, it can be argued that the belief that knowledge is memorization of
facts cheats the student from a lifetime of enjoyment of learning for the sake
of learning.
All of the data would suggest that constructivism leads to better understanding
of the material being acquired by the student. The goal is for the student to
experience the world with increasing accuracy and establish for themselves the
facts of their external (and internal) reality [18].
One means proposed to accomplish this experience is by tossing aside tradi-
tional individual projects in favor of large or small group projects. This requires
the student to actively participate with other members of the class on the project.
Hopefully, during the process students will learn not to be married to any one
approach in finding a solution to an obstacle, but will utilize each member of the
group’s unique viewpoint to move closer to their primary goal.
The building of a Web site is an example where the constructivist approach
illustrates that group participation is required for completion of the project where,
“Student Web sites are a tapestry of talents, which we can all learn from” [13].
A consensus must be reached on the material to be presented along with the
appearance of the Web page(s). The skills for building a Web page are required
with the added benefit that immediate feedback is presented as the students
assemble their Web page.
The traditional teaching methods are straightforward with conclusions of what
is fact and factual and what is not. This all or nothing approach to learning
gives the student the false sense of security that experts know the facts and, hence,
if you observe and listen to them, you will eventually be able to duplicate their
success by copying their “technique.”
Students are increasingly Internet savvy and become bored quickly with
“page-turning” assignments that mimic typical print work. The challenge for
teachers is to use the technology in new and unique ways instead of just trying
to recreate traditional lessons. The term I have heard for this is “shovelware.”
Instead of making a pedagological change in delivery, a teacher simply
“shovels” current content into a new container [19].
234 / FISHER

A STUDENT’S PERSPECTIVE OF A
LEARNING COMMUNITY

An interesting shift takes place in the students when they accept responsibility
for their own learning. They become vested in the outcome because they have
helped establish their own goal(s), which results in a “broad spectrum of contri-
butions and ideas from students” [13].
In a study of fourth-year students learning Japanese as a foreign language
(JFL), developing a learning community was shown to bring about shifts
in perspective. First, it changed the primary learning environment from
the language lab to one that reflected the real world where language
acquisition is of participation in the social world. Second, there was a
shift from an emphasis on the individual learner to one of a shared com-
munity [20].
Rather than being subjected to being told what to do, they are being guided
in how to accomplish something that they have decided upon. Their vested
interest in the outcome is an important factor when it comes to motivation
because the learning is no longer an external manifestation that is held inside
a textbook; rather the learning is internal and depends on their decisions of
what to include or exclude. As one student says, “How rewarding it is to read
an article, feel a strong reaction, type this into the threaded discussion area
(newsgroup), and read someone else’s reaction in a few hours! In a traditional
setup, I’d have to wait until next week’s class” [13].
What is required for a successful experience from an instructor’s viewpoint is
participation in the form of feedback. The feedback can be directed to a specific
student, a sub-group, or all of the students. In fact that is the primary purpose of
an instructor to provide feedback as needed.
For some it is difficult to observe the “learning” taking place. Unlike a tradi-
tional classroom that moves in lockstep to well-defined syllabus (that is measured
by minutes and hours), learning is sometimes difficult to observe—even by
those involved in the collaborative effort [21]. The advantage to a collaborative
community is the direct involvement that is required for the acquisition of
knowledge. One student observed, “Ideas are out there for all to see and comment
on, which lends itself to our examining of what we are doing and learning. . . .”
“(We get to) see the big picture” [13].
It is difficult to be a non-participant without falling back into the tradi-
tional mode of learning by rote and explicit isolation of sharing knowledge.
“The assignments utilizing technology are not just busy-work, but are thought
provoking and challenging—much more so than any undergraduate or graduate
classes that I’ve ever had. Always before the learning has been self-contained . . .
[now] we rely on cohort members for help, support, information, and feedback.
That makes a world of difference. The technology involved makes that
possible” [13].
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 235

THE PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY OMAET MODEL

Online Master of Arts in Educational Technology, founded in August 1998 by

Education faculty at Pepperdine, focuses on bringing to educators and corporate
training professionals a practical model for developing skills and knowledge of
current and developing technologies, as well as “soft” skills that are applicable to
the teaching and learning environment. Pepperdine offers an advanced Master
of Arts program for K–12 educators and corporate training professionals with
at least three years of experience in educational settings.
Students in this program break the barriers of school walls with electronic net-
working. Connecting with the larger professional community, working on mean-
ingful projects in collaboration with peers and faculty, and reflecting on those
experiences, all enable students to construct deeper understandings of subject
matter than in traditional graduate settings. The technology specialization supports
two themes: learning and leadership. Students learn how technology can support
innovative ideas in learning environments—constructivism, context, assessment,
collaboration, and community—by experiencing them directly, as learners in both real
and virtual classrooms. The program also prepares students to lead others, develop
colleagues, manage resources, make technology decisions, and secure project
funding. Students work with multimedia, groupware, and Net-based applications
and hardware and become fully engaged in an electronic learning community.
In the Master of Arts in Educational Technology program, 85 percent of the
course work is conducted online, with 15 percent conducted in three face-to-face
settings. Two of the three face-to-face sessions take place over an intensive
five-day period at our campus. The other face-to-face meeting takes place at a
national educational technology conference venue. All other course work occurs
online through asynchronous threaded discussions, Web pages, and real time
“chat.” All courses for this 30-unit program are taken with a cadre, or team, with
an annual intake in summer.
For Pepperdine University instructors, the major hurdle has been how to design
Web-based learning communities that encourage participation and foster a sense
of community even greater than what is experienced in the traditional face-to-face
educational environments. This increased sense of community is what separates
our program from the typical asynchronous “discussion-only” or the traditional
correspondence course online program. As said by one student, “I don’t think it
would be the same if I had never met any of the participants. The face-to-face was
a valuable component in this program” [13].
As mentioned earlier, Pepperdine University found synchronous discussion to
be an excellent strategy for creating an active online environment which allows
students and instructors to interact continually during their coursework in a live,
responsive, and dynamic setting without limitations to distance. When students
and faculty enter the virtual classroom, the instructor’s focus is how to be of
value to the students through the needs of this learning community.
236 / FISHER

The learning group at Pepperdine is usually limited to approximately 25 stu-

dents, which allows for smaller and more focused subsets of people to help each
other. It is in a learning community where help and support are offered to each
other in learning without the professor intervening each time. In particular, the
main task is to help each other learn from the material and from each student’s
experience.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTER AND INTRA SKILL SETS

The combination of the synchronous and asynchronous communication is a
situation where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. One without the
other is weakened because together they give students an opportunity to develop
both inter and intra skills. Intra relationship skills are developed as students reflect
on course material before posting in newsgroups. As one student stated, “I
just wanted to make the point that so much we are learning has nothing to do
with the online 24/7 stuff, and everything to do with making changes in how
we teach, how we facilitate, how we interact, how we learn, and taking risks
from this point forward.”
This is not to suggest that inter and intra skills are mutually exclusive and
take place only in one type of situation. Rather, that one type of environment is
more conducive to developing a particular relationship skill. The mere act of
communication undoubtedly causes inter and intra relationship skills to develop.
What we are purporting is that element of time determines if a particular type of
communication is more conducive to inter or intra communication.
Simply put, if a person is able to choose when and where to respond to a concept
or idea, as in asynchronous communication, the temporal process will be of an
intra relationship skill because the individual has a greater time to reflect on how
he/she will respond and has ample opportunity to revise any comments. Some
students go so far as to read through the threaded discussion postings and tag
those which they will respond to later that day after they have had time to reflect
on what they have read. The important issue here is that a response can be
metered out to express exactly how the student wants to be perceived.
In contrast, inter relationship skills are developed in synchronous communi-
cation as in real time chat Tapped In. The time element here requires a student to
respond quickly because the discussion is typically multithreaded (more than one
conversation taking place at any one time). It requires a participant to think,
absorb, and respond quickly to a discussion. Unlike asynchronous threaded discus-
sions, a student cannot meter out their thoughts, hence the need for inter relation-
ship skills. As one student said, “Making changes to how we interact with students
or business colleagues and developing a more collaborative, community of learner
approach will have major impact in what we do with or without technology.”
The inter and intra relationship skills are a product of the technological process
rather than any specific direction given by the instructor. It is important to note that
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 237

the relationship skills being discussed are frequently enhanced by the type of
questions that the instructor posts in both asynchronous and synchronous dis-
cussions. Often the community of students arrives with more questions than
answers about the online learning process.

ONLINE LEARNING BREAKS WITH TRADITION

The online process does require a leap-of-faith for those students who have
never had an online course. For those students without distant learning experience
many have been conditioned by traditional classroom settings that students are
expected to report on what they learned from course reading assignments by
answering closed ended questions asked by the instructor and could only hope that
the instructor will cover their questions in his/her lecture.
In the community session the students are asked open ended questions to:

1. Provide a challenge that requires the students to interpret the material.

2. Open up the discussion so different points of view of the material will be
presented.

During this time it is the instructor’s focus to keep the open online dialogue
within the realm of what is being discussed and to prevent any abuses of the open
learning in dialogue from occurring. In any occasion, having a public
give-and-take among the students was instructive to class and added to the
authenticity of the exchange. Students segue from the traditional classroom to
online learning—one filled with freedom and excitement—since they are able to
freely communicate with fellow students. So aptly stated by one student, “I
communicate regularly and on a very deep level with my fellow students and
professors, and the academic level of my studies is far greater than any in
face-to-face class in which I have been a student.”
What is particularly interesting to note is that the online community creates a
level playing field for all students. In a traditional classroom there are typically
a few students who demonstrate a greater proclivity for a subject and/or have a
dominant personality style that leads them to participate in classroom discussions
to a greater extent than those students who withdraw from classroom discussion
for one reason or another. Asynchronous and synchronous In participation are
mandatory and are offered in a noncompetitive atmosphere. As a result, the with-
drawn student does not have to struggle to be heard and is given a voice that is on
par with the most boisterous student without making them feel that they are
altering their personality type in any way. Distant learning discussions are truly
the great equalizer, which helps in developing an online community.
Students build a community that is the result of skill, imagination, and creativity
of the members themselves. In the online discussions students have, besides the
ability to communicate with others, the ability to manipulate virtual objects and
238 / FISHER

construct new ones. They not only construct the environment in the discussion,
their very identities within the environment are also established and evolve.
We found synchronous environments to be the most powerful social aspect
for this learning in dialogue. It allows participants a chance to really get to know
each other as a community, which then connects and motivates students toward
continuous discussion of content, problem solving, and application in the asyn-
chronous environment. It adds a social dimension by providing real-time updated
resources, stimulating curiosity, and immediate feedback. One student stated,
“All student projects are featured online, and their colleagues are encouraged to
send comments, feedback, and suggestions. . . . Assessment occurs throughout
most learning activities in my course, and is based on students’ performance of
authentic task, and includes the use of Web portfolios.” Thus, part of the learning
is becoming conscious of the subject or experience, addressing changing attitudes
and calling them into question.
During the first couple of synchronous (Tapped In) online sessions the students
are often challenged by the software commands, but quickly adapt. They are also
faced with the challenge of typing with a reasonable amount of accuracy. Typing
proficiency quickly improves out of necessity and soon the students are typing
with much the same rhythm as in their natural speech.
By the third session students frequently are surprised by how well they can
recognize the originator of text because, “you type the way you sound.” Students
create and establish a voice, an online identity, and culture among their com-
munity. By creating an online identity their comfort level for participation also
increases because the process in many ways mimics the face-to-face classroom.
The interaction we strive for in the online learning community at Pepperdine
is one of a collaborative creation of meaning along with a focused outcome. The
purpose is to have students reflect on their experience with their learning
community, which in turn will develop for them new knowledge. The goal is
for the students’ efforts to result in a collective intellect and a mutual account-
ability for the material under study.
As a result, there are a greater number of avenues for the student to be exposed
to the material by the mere fact that each student in the class will express their
viewpoint through a filter of their previous experience. Observed by one student,
“I realized that everything I had learned to that point was from someone else’s
perspective and that my opinions were very shallow” [14]. And another student’s
point-of-view, “I can count on my cohort to explain their points of view on a
passage in a book or a remark from another cohort member that in turn enriches
my learning” [13].
To contrast this with traditional teaching methods, the student generally
receives two perspectives on the material under study, and that is of the textbook
and the instructor’s viewpoint. Also, because the material is shaded with
different viewpoints it requires the student to develop a perceptive quality in
their thinking ability.
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 239

For a student to acquire such a wide perspective of viewpoints that are offered in
a learning community for any area of study to duplicate in a traditional learning
environment it would require an enormous amount of reading and research that
would be beyond time constraints for all but a select few students. This enhances
the community’s ability to interpret this and co-build the discussions, metaphors,
and objects which leads to a collective intellect. It is entirely text-based, which
actually adds to the skill level of the participant. In learning to express ones’
self in text, students learn to become better articulators in written works, not
just improving typing skills but “thinking-on-your-feet” skills, deliberate com-
munication and reflection, or spontaneous collaboration. One student observed,
“I find myself feeling empowered to share ideas and comment on others’ thoughts
to an extent that I probably would not and could not in a traditional classroom”
[13]. These simple tools are inexpensive and require little or no technological
curve to get working. There is no additional complex tool to figure out just the raw
learning, in text. Students often experiment with new tools and the online faculty
are open to the use and adoption of promising new tools for communication.

CONCLUSION:
RELATING THEORY TO PRACTICE
The bigger question that must be answered by any teaching method is how
successful is the program? The traditional teaching method places an emphasis on
retention of facts, which can easily be tested with true/false, multiple choice, and
closed-ended questions. The data garnered with these types of test are designed for
empirical presentations. Pepperdine’s model measures success with the student’s
knowledge of the material rather than information retained. Since empirical tests
have not been developed to measure knowledge, Pepperdine uses the method of
show, don’t tell. Students are expected to put their knowledge into practice and
demonstrate real life applications of the knowledge that they acquire throughout
the program.
The advantage of this process is twofold. First, the student must understand the
material and share their understanding with fellow students. Second, they then
must apply it to real life situations and be able to demonstrate the success or failure
of the process. In many ways this approach challenges the student in ways that
he/she have not encountered before in an educational environment. In essence they
are expected to acquire material, digest the material, apply their new knowledge,
and then demonstrate their experience.
A faculty member shared:

When we first took the online program proposal to our accreditation body, we
knew we’d get asked about that, and we were. Mostly the questions were
about ‘authenticity’ of the students’ work. How would we know Pat wrote the
paper, did the project, or answered the essay questions, herself? Of course the
240 / FISHER

answer is: the same way you know it’s Pat when she’s in the face-to-face,
traditional classroom. From interacting with Pat over the semester you have
a sense of what she knows, what her syntax is like, and how she handles the
ideas of the course that have come up in discussion. If there is a major
discrepancy between that image of her and the image she projects in work she
hands in, then you become suspicious and look more closely That answer
satisfied our accreditation body and our faculty. However, we have come to
grow and several students have pointed out, that is an answer for an old
paradigm, a paradigm based on knowledge transmission as the detectable
outcome of teaching and indicator of learning. This new perspective is correct
in acknowledging that we are actually working a different paradigm. In a
socio-cultural paradigm for learning, the outcome is best described as the
transformation of identity, assuming that practice and identity are intertwined.
When people learn in our program, we expect them to evolve, to become
different people and, accordingly, to behave differently in situation, based on
newly accomplished understandings and capabilities. But that’s at the end
of the degree program [23].

The success of this program is readily understood when looking at the retention
numbers for the online program since it began. A most recent focus group of
85 students and 15 alumni explored and examined program development recom-
mendations, trends, and global implications (see Table 1).
In comparison to another college’s online programs it has a retention rate
for the same period of 63 percent and a success rate of 50 percent. Alone these
figures are interesting, but not very significant because the student populations
are somewhat different. However, the other college figures do become important
when compared with the school’s retention and success rate excluding the distant
learning figures. On the average, the retention rate for the school is 85 percent
and the success rate is 78 percent. The figures do illustrate that distant learning
at this college is not keeping pace with their own traditional classroom.

Table 1.

Year of Total
enrollment Education Business yr. Dropped Graduated Percentages

1998 24 1 20 83.33
1999 62 1 58 93.55
2000 74 2 67 90.54
2001 63 1 61 96.83
2002 42 31 73 TBD
Total enrolled
over 5 years 296
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 241

Illustration 1: Community

Pepperdine’s Ed Tech programs continue to combine the best of

virtual and vertical learning. This illustration depicts the rich relationships
engendered by Pepperdine’s community approach.

What we can conclude from this example at another college is that the move
from the traditional classroom to online is not a smooth one and requires an
adjustment from both student and faculty. In comparison to the Pepperdine
program, which has few dropouts, we feel that adapting a learning community
would help many online programs see a higher retention and success rate.
In analysis of these data sources from the past four years across the online
Master’s in Ed Tech program, we were able to widen the research sample and
increase the confidence level of results in identifying and describing several
key elements and patterns of learning and growth that are important to student
performance achievement and what students attribute to part of their growth
during the program [24].
To set up an effective online environment we found the following elements
must be considered:

• Learning model needs to be collaborative and approached as a team effort;

• Professors act as guides, mentor’s, and even co-learners;
242 / FISHER

Illustration 2: Iterative Communities

As illustrated below, the community is always expanding. Each new

cohort is mentored not only by faculty and staff, but by selected alumni
with an interest in the ongoing success of the community.

• Student opinion and experience is valued by professors and peers;

• Students are challenged to apply new knowledge and share what happened
as a result; this challenge piece changes knowledge into something owned
not memorized;
• Select tools for both synchronous and asynchronous communication;
• Include learning technologies: chat rooms, threaded discussions, video
streaming, audio streaming, simulations, and laboratories;
• Decide on activities/projects (a.k.a., What to do where?);
• Make projects and assignments open-ended—include project-based assign-
ments, both synch and asynchronous; interactive set-up includes distributed
collaborators, Web-based inquiry application, rich media, and public demon-
stration of learning;
• Determine how work will be evaluated (i.e., peer review, percent on collab-
oration) and communicate it to students;
• Determine how you will provide feedback (i.e., e-mails, privacy, frequency);
• Set schedule for synchronous meetings; consider student input;
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING /

Illustration 3: Working from the inside out produces deeper learning.

Online learning must begin with community development followed by a precise method for learning,
243

collaborative projects, and connected application. In this way learners are able to quickly assimilate and apply the learning.
244 / FISHER

Illustration 4: Types of Interactive Communication Web Techniques.

 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 245

• Set expectations for asynchronous discussion; and

• Limit group size (i.e., 20–25 for newsgroups, 3–5 for group projects); pro-
vide orientation if required (i.e., Tech Camp, tech remediation, community
help).
In Pepperdine’s program, it is believed that learning may best be achieved
through the social construction of knowledge in a “learning community”—
an environment where the student is both a member of a learning community
and also an agent of the learning within that environment (Illustration 1).
Colleagues are an invaluable source of new and different ideas, and this
opportunity provides an innovative structure for networking within and across
campuses and workplaces.
In many instances, the community makes visible the learning that has
already occurred. For example, members help each other to draw conceptual
insights from experience, whether social activities or other experience. Also, it
helps improve understanding as to how to apply the social material in practice.
The community can also serve a number of other valuable purposes, including:
providing support and friendship, helping each other decide how to proceed with
assignments and projects, exchanging material relevant to the more specific
interests of the community, as well as learning vicariously from one another’s
experience.
Pepperdine’s model of access to and use of valid and relevant knowledge for
teaching in virtual discussions somewhat depends on student success in learning
with one another. Developing a learning community creates an environment
that empowers students to construct their own meaning from information and
resources presented to them in courses and trainings. It also creates the environ-
ment for reflection. The establishment of a strong learning community is
imperative for a group of busy professionals learning together virtually over an
extended period of time (Illustration 2). Participants share a common set of
purposes, practices, and perspectives and collaborate in a playful, yet purposeful
setting, engaging in activities that maximize active learning opportunities.
Instructors encourage and maintain electronic discussions and provide meaningful
feedback on student assignments. Students and instructors communicate online
via e-mail, instant messaging, threaded, synchronous real-time environments, and
personal Web pages, among others. “Both newsgroups (asynchronous) and
Tapped In (synchronous) offer something missing from “graduate
programs—students are held accountable not only for their own work, but for
building on classmates’ thoughts and work to construct something more powerful
than any of the separate parts” [14]. Students plan and develop a personal Web site
enabling them to achieve the prescribed learning goals of the particular program.
They also build digital portfolios on their Web site of work highlighting research
and project-based problem solving assignments (Illustration 3).
246 / FISHER

Synchronous Interaction

(A): I’ve been struggling on how to simplify the data and format the
presentation. Your work is guiding me and getting me to settle down.
Stephanie (S): That is weird for me to hear (but nice) because I honestly have
looked to your work on so many past projects as my guide . . . and thank you
again for that in case I ever forgot to tell you.
(A): I really like your students’ pros and cons. It shows there honest and
non-bias concerns in their day-to-day environment.
(S): LOL, the pros and cons thing seemed like the only possible choice I had for
presenting this info . . . and I was actually unsure about it, seems so plain and
unsophisticated to me I guess . . . your viewpoint is helpful.
(A): These were some of the concerns the children and I discussed in one of
our meetings. Of course my environment does not have laptops . . . We like to
brainstorm the “what ifs?” Glad to hear that these are real issues.
(S): They are real and very serious . . . and parents are expressing many similar
comments when I speak to them . . . come to think of it, I should have been
writing their comments down all along, not just the students . . .
(A): Curious about your opinion too, Who really pushed for the laptops—the
parents or the teachers?
(S): Neither . . . the school administration spent some time from what I
understand visiting a couple of other private schools up north who had similar
programs that were deemed successful. The teachers, from what I can gather,
were as a collective whole, not a part of the process, which I think was a grave
mistake . . .
(A): Was the curriculum set up to integrate way before the purchase of the
laptops or did they get the laptops before the integration? Some highend
schools like to get laptops because it creates a nice Public Relations with the
Community . . . a “hip” school per se. Do you think that this school had this in
mind first.
(S): I think you hit the nail on the head with the public relations thing . . .what
has happened here in our little town is that my old school has been planning
and building this spectacular state-of-the-art nationally recognized brand new
~$30 million school (to be opened this fall) so my new school a couple of
years ago freaked and had to come up with something that was “spectacular”
to compete . . . well the laptop program I guess seemed the public relations
agenda of choice (for the administration any ways). Was the curriculum
set up to integrate these laptops? No, in fact they still use the old curriculum
and are trying to mesh the laptops in to them which seems pretty difficult
to me . . .
(A): The computer experts . . . Are they technical or educational or both? How
are the teachers skills in technology? Do they follow the official or classical
approach? Are they constructivists?
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 247

Synchronous Interaction (Cont’d.)

(S): Honestly, I am not sure which philosophy of education they follow since
they don’t actually teach . . . good thought though . . .
(A): It’s just funny that they were asked to purchase the laptops without thinking
of the personal needs of the child, basic-storing and necessities. The physical
environment would be important to consider before implementation . . .don’t
you think?
(S): The really infuriating thing is to see these little kids (and some of them still
have such tiny bodies) hunched under their bookbags and lugging around
these laptops everywhere . . . I just remember my neck and back aches from
virt camp walking with my laptop from the hotel everyday, I don’t know how
these kids do it.
(A): Love this topic! Sorry for the questions . . . just so interested . . .
(S): What? Are you kidding me? This is exactly what I needed and was hoping
for! Thank you!

The psychology behind online learning is nothing new. It stems from the
affective domain of learning, utilizing the six stages of learning commonly used
to generate the most meaningful learning experience by internalizing what
is learned [22]. These environments provide a place to connect the learning
engaged to practical, real world application of the learning, allowing and sup-
porting the internalization of information, philosophy, psychology, and ideology
covered in their program coursework. Educators need to model appropriate appli-
cations of these new cooperative/collaborative teaching and learning strategies
rather than the tools themselves (see examples in Illustration 4). Future research
in this area will prove instrumental in generating awareness of optimum
strategies for dramatically improving what educators can deliver to students
in the hopes of enhancing a student’s ability for learning in dialogue online
with a learning community and then applying their knowledge to real life
experiences.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Material for this case was gathered from documents provided by Pepperdine
University, from the program Web site, from student evaluations and feedback,
from conversations and interviews with students and faculty in the program.
Also, Table 1 and model elements for effective learning environments are from
“A Model for Shaping The Learning Environment For Effective Web Based
Courses: Pepperdine’s Online Master’s in Educational Technology Program” by
Mercedes M. Fisher and Bonita G. Coleman. The author thanks Richard Brassaw,
248 / FISHER

a graduate student in the OMAET at Pepperdine University, for his help with
this project.

REFERENCES
1. A. Bandura, Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1977.
2. J. Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct. An Introduction to Social Psychology, Allen
and Unwin, London, 1922.
3. J. Bruner, Towards a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
1966.
4. L. S. Vygotsky, President and Fellows of Harvard College, USA, 1978.
5. J. Lave, Cognition in Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom, 1988.
6. M. Cole and Y. Engstrom, A Cultural-Historical Approach to Distributed Cognition, in
Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, G. Salomon
(ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 1-46, 1993.
7. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, New York, 1991.
8. B. Rogoff, Introduction: Thinking and Learning in a Social Context, in Everyday
Cognition: Its Development in Social Context, B. Rogoff and J. Lave (eds.), Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 1-8, 1998.
9. M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Computer Support for Knowledge-Building
Communities, The Journal of Learning Sciences, 3:3, pp. 265-283, 1994.
10. E. Wenger, Communities of Practice Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 1998.
11. J. V. Wertsch, a Dialogue between Sociocultural Theory and Current Social
Psychology, in El dialogo entre la teoria sociocultural y la psicologia social actual,
D. Paez and A. Blanco (eds.), 1998.
12. J. W. Lave, Etienne, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (1999
Edition), Cambridge University Press, New York, 1991.
13. B. G. Garnett, Quote, October 3, 2001.
14. G. B. Bull, W. Heinecke, R. Walker, L. Blasi, and J. Willis, Collaborative Learning,
Learning and Leading with Technology, 26:5, pp. 48-52, Fall 1999.
15. Y. Andres, Students Benefit from Collaborative Learning in the Classroom, T.H.E.
Journal, 2, pp. 42-46, 2000.
16. W. G. Perry, Jr., Patterns of Development in Thought and Values of Students in a
Liberal Arts College: A Validation of a Scheme, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1968.
17. W. G. Perry, Jr., Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years:
A Scheme, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1970.
18. J. M. Applefield, Constructivism in Theory and Practice: Toward a Better Under-
standing, The High School Journal, 84:2, p. 35, Chapel Hill, 2001.
19. A. B. Fraser, Tap the Pedagogical Potential of the World-Wide Web, Chronicle of
Higher Education, 48, p. B8, August 8, 1999.
 ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING / 249

20. M. Haneda, Second Language Learning in a “Community of Practice”: A Case Study

of Adult Japanese Learners, Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, pp. 11-27,
October 1997.
21. Z. F. Gamson, Collaborative Learning Comes of Age, Change, 26, pp. 44-49,
September/October 1994.
22. D. R. Krathwohl, B. S. Bloom, and B. B. Masia, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:
Handbook II: Affective Domain, David McKay Co., New York, 1964.
23. L. G. Polin, Quote, August 6, 2002.
24. M. Fisher and B. Coleman, A Model for Shaping the Learning Environment for
Effective Web Based Courses: Pepperdine’s Online Master’s in Educational Tech-
nology Program, IEEE Computer Society Press, Auckland, New Zealand, December
2002.

Direct reprint requests to:

Mercedes Fisher, Ph.D.
Director, Master of Arts Program in Educational Technology
Pepperdine University
Malibu, CA 90230