Collaborative Learning through Forum Systems

– Problems and Opportunities

Eva R Fåhræus (evafaahr@dsv.su.se)
Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University/KTH, Electrum 230, S-164 40
KISTA, Sweden
http://www.dsv.su.se/~evafaahr
Abstract
Important factors for collaborative learning to work effectively via forum systems are: (1) Pos-
sibility for learners to communicate effectively, to reach and understand each other and to
build trust and common ground. (2) The learners' motivation to collaborate with each other,
taking responsibility for the whole group. (3) Efficient access to information and to other
resources valuable for learning to occur.
Forum systems are used here as an interaction environment. Important characteristics of text-
based asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) concerning the learning situa-
tion are the independence of place and time, the permanence, the text-based mode, and the de-
pendency on technology and on task.
To arrange for a fruitful learning environment, teachers need to take advantage of the possi-
bilities given by the forum system, and to try to reduce the problems. Theory, as well as my own
experience and a systematic survey of characteristics and consequences of CMC on collabora-
tive learning have lead me to deduce tips to teachers, and corresponding support functions that
such a forum system ought to contain to aid the teachers and the learning process.
This paper is partly based on excerpts from my licentiate thesis (Fåhræus, 2000a).
Keywords: Collaborative Learning, Forum systems, Teacher tips, Support functions
1. Introduction
Collaboration can be very important in several types of learning. This can even include flexible learn-
ing situations, where learners can study at separate places and at different time. How can we arrange
effective collaboration through a forum system? (Here, mainly the term forum system will be used, for
a text-based asynchronous (=non-simultaneous) electronic environment for interaction.) Which are the
obstacles and the advantages? Based on literature, experiences from two studies, and discussions with
other researchers, this paper describes characteristics of computer-mediated communication (CMC)
and several prerequisites for effective collaborative learning. Based on this foundation, tips are pre-
sented that could help teachers arrange collaborative learning. There are also tips about support func-
tions to build into forum systems in order to support the teacher and the learning process.
The word "collaboration" implies that individuals work together. In this paper, collaboration is inter-
preted in a closer sense than cooperation. If a group cooperates on a project, participants might divide
the task in different subtasks. Each individual works on one subtask and the group might meet only to
coordinate the work and to merge the results. Collaboration would require two or more individuals to
work together with each subtask. As Dillenbourg and colleagues (1995) put it: ”... in cooperation, the
task is split (hierarchically) into independent subtasks; in collaboration, cognitive processes may be
(heterarchically) divided into intertwined layers.” (p. 190). Collaboration has intent and opportunities
for non-compliance. To collaborate, you have to make an effort to reach a shared meaning (Schwartz,
1999). This implies that, for collaboration to occur, the individuals have to be motivated to work for
the group (Fåhræus et al., 1999).
1.1 Our Empirical Studies
In order to explore the use of forum systems to support collaborative learning, I have conducted two
studies. In the first one (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1997a), Problem Based Learning (PBL) was applied
around the pedagogical use of the Internet in high-school teaching. Self-formed and self-directed
groups of two to nine participants took part in problem solving and group discussions to reach con-
sensus. The aim was mainly to explore new possibilities given by the Internet by using each other’s
experience and problem-solving skills. We strived towards the collaborative type of learning situation.
In effect also co-operation occurred: Most of the groups partitioned the tasks between them. In many
cases, on the other hand, the partitioned tasks were given to pairs to solve; and these pairs were col-
laborating.
In the second study (Fåhræus, 2000b), computer-science students were to discuss the influence of IT
use on the society. A group of 30 students conducted discussions around five themes, e.g., IT and
gender, and IT in the workplace. Here, the aim was to stimulate the students to develop a more mature
attitude and to be aware of the existence of different views, at the same time as they were trained in
using a forum system in a learning context. There were two different group-learning situations: small
groups of four to six students, and the whole class. The tasks for the small groups were to choose
articles to read, and to make a summary of each chosen article. The groups solved the task by parti-
tioning it between group members, as individuals or pairs. The discussion in the whole class can be
characterized as an articulation process within a collaborative situation. By articulating their under-
standing and opinions about the articles, the students invited peer students to collaborate. By reading
each other’s contributions and trying to formulate a response they had to reflect on their own thoughts
(Fåhræus, 2000b).
2. Motives and Formats for Collaborative Learning
If we accept that learning is a social process, we may also see collaboration as equally important in
education. There is research showing that collaboration can be beneficial for learning, especially if the
purpose is to enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills, or to introduce multiple perspectives
on an issue (e.g., Gokhale, 1995; Harasim et al., 1995).
2.1 Definition
Dillenbourg suggests a broad definition (1999, p. 2) of collaborative learning as "a situation in which
two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together". He also points out that each element
of this definition may be interpreted in many ways. The learning we discuss in this paper is planned
learning within some kind of course context.
2.2 Classifications
Salomon and Perkins (1998) distinguish six meanings of social learning (1998, pp. 3-6)
1. Active social mediation of individual learning. ... [A] person or a team helps an individual
to learn. ...
2. Social mediation as participatory knowledge construction. ... Social mediation of learning
and the individual involved are seen as an integrated and highly situated system in which
the interaction serves as the socially shared vehicles of thought. ...
3. Social mediation by cultural scaffolding. ... [T]he learner may enter into some kind of inte-
llectual partnership, or at least be greatly helped by cultural artifacts in the form of tools
and information sources. ...
4. The social entity as a learning system. ... [T]eams or organizations or other collectives ...
[-] as a collective [-] acquire more knowledge, understanding, or skill, or a different
climate or culture. ...
5. Learning to be a social learner. ... [L]earning to learn in ways that participate in and
capitalize on the social milieu. ...
6. Learning social content. ... [H]ow to get along with others, how to maintain reasonable
assertiveness, how to collaborate in reaching decisions and taking collective actions, and so
on. ...
Looking back on the courses in our empirical studies, we can identify the use of all the six meanings of
social learning except Number 4. In the first study, emphasis is put on Number 1 and 2, whereas in the
second study the use of Number 3, 5 and 6 is more at focus. There was no intent to establish lasting
teams in these courses, which is addressed in the meaning Number 4.
Fjuk (1998) formulated three different goals for collaborative learning (p. 23):
1) Joint construction of problem solutions by mutual refinement;
2) Exploring different opposed alternatives in argumentation;
3) The students are using each other as a resource.
According to this classification, the first study applies Number 1, the second Number 2, and both
studies apply Number 3.
3. Computer-Mediated Communication
3.1 Special Characteristics of Computer-Mediated Communication
It may be fruitful to compare computer-mediated communication (CMC) with face-to-face communi-
cation. According to Berger and Luckman (1967) the face-to-face situation "... is the prototypical case
of social interaction. All other cases are derivatives of it." (p. 43).
Clark (1996) lists ten characteristics of the basic face-to-face conversation. A comparison between the
text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication and the face-to-face communication
shows differences in five of these characteristics, namely co-presence, instantaneity, extemporaneity,
evanescence and “recordlessness”.
Instead of co-presence, participants in the CMC situation can dwell in quite different physical envi-
ronments. The communication is independent of place.
Instantaneity and extemporaneity are severely hampered even in synchronous CMC. It takes time for
the 'speakers' to write down their thoughts and to send them and the 'listeners' need some time to read.
When we deal with asynchronous CMC, their messages can be received days after they were sent. The
senders cannot control the time at which the recipients read the message. They can be received days
after they were sent. The sender may have to wait several more days to get feedback. This provides
independence of time. In face-to-face meeting, feedback is practically immediate.
Evanescence and “recordlessness” are characteristics of the face-to-face communication, while CMC is
characterized by permanence: What is written stays in the computer system and can be retrieved,
reused, and reflected on again and again.
Text-based communication lack body language and other non-verbal or para-verbal cues. This
narrows the expressivity in the communication and can lead to misinterpretations (e.g., Chesebro &
Bonsall, 1989). It also keeps the focus on the content (Hiltz & Turoff, 1993; Mantovani, 1996).
The technological character of CMC can infuse a feeling of lack of humanity in some people. They
feel that they cannot ”see”, ”hear”, and "get in touch" with group members through the technical
devices. Their social skills need to be replaced by technical skills (Chesebro & Bonsall, 1989). If
learners perceive such a demand, this can create an inequality between those who like and feel at ease
with the medium and those who do not.
The degree in which restricted communication influences collaboration depends on the task at hand.
For assembling information before a meeting, CMC is a convenient medium (Palme, 1995). For more
complex tasks and especially tasks involving negotiation or conflict resolution, research has shown that
the face-to-face situation is more effective
Thus, the most important characteristics of text-based asynchronous CMC concerning the learning
situation are the following: (i) Independence of place and time, (ii) Permanence, (iii) Text-based mode,
(iv) Dependency on technology and on task.
3.2 CMC Characteristics Influencing Collaborative Learning
Many factors influence successful collaborative learning and these are both augmented and impeded
by CMC. I suggest the following factors as especially important:
 Possibility for learners to communicate effectively, to reach and understand each other and to
build trust and common ground.
 The learners' motivation to collaborate with each other, taking responsibility for the whole
group.
 Efficient access to information and to other resources, valuable for learning to occur.
Figure 4.1 tries to illustrate how the characteristics of CMC can augment and impede the efficiency of
collaborative learning. Depending on how the technology is applied in a learning situation, the
augmenting or the impeding power will take the lead.
 Te x t - ba s e d
m ode

P e r m a ne nc e
Inde pe nde nc e of
t im e a nd pla c e

Efficie nc y of

Ef fe ct i ve Ac ce ss t o
c omm uni- i nfo r-
De pe nde nc y on c at io n m at ion
De pe nde nc y on
t as k t e c hnology
M ot i va ti on t o
c ol la bo ra te

c olla bo ra t ive le a rn in g

Figure 3.1. How characteristics of CMC can augment (marked by outward arrows) and impede
(inward arrows) collaborative learning
4. Teacher Tips and Support Functions
The characteristics and consequences of CMC have lead me to deduce tips to teachers, and corre-
sponding support functions that a forum system ought to contain to aid the teachers and the learning
process. Below, is a list of some of these tips and support functions under the headings of the important
factors, mentioned above. (More tips are found in Fåhræus, 2000a.) The list is not complete, but
hopefully, it could work as an inspiration and checklist for teachers and system designers. In the list,
 the characteristics and consequences of CMC are marked CC,
 the tips to teachers are marked TT, and
 the forum functions to support teachers are marked FF.
4.1 Possibility to Communicate Effectively
a) The grounding process may be impeded
CC With interlocutors located in different environments, communicating via a narrow medium,
the grounding process may be impeded. If the "speaker" refers to a thing or a condition, e.g., the tem-
perature in the room, this cannot be understood by the "listener" without thorough explanations.
Without a common ground, misunderstanding is frequent.
TT If possible, arrange for a face-to-face meeting before the online discussion starts. Tell students
to exchange some information about themselves, their context, and background (Männikkö & Fåhræus,
1997a; Fåhræus, 1999a).
FF A system should provide an area for self-presentation, easily accessible while reading the
messages.
b) Time delay can distort meaning and create parallel threads
CC The time delay and parallel threads can be confusing, if the contributions are mixed in the
same forum (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1998; McDaniel et al., 1996).
TT Make students aware of the time delay and its consequences. By placing the discussion about
each topic in different forums, the problem with parallel threads may turn into an asset.
FF The system should visualize the discussion threads, e.g., by indenting contributions. It should
also make it possible to split an existing forum into two or more, and distribute the existing messages
according to subject, perhaps with some of them ending up in both.
c) Time for reading, writing, and reflecting
CC The permanent quality of the medium and the time independence can help those who need
more time to find information, to formulate their thoughts, and to understand, sometimes simply
because they are not yet quite familiar with the language used. Impaired people who have problems
with talking or hearing can use this medium on more equal terms with other people (Fåhræus et al.,
1999).
TT Give students enough calendar time to manage their discussions, even if members in the group
use their time quite differently (Fåhræus et al., 1999).
d) Written text is more efficient to digest.
CC We read faster than we talk, and if we do not understand immediately, we can re-read
(Chesebro & Bonsall, 1989).
TT The advantage of fast text-reading should not be overestimated. Students might be tempted to
copy texts from the Internet to insert in their contributions. Not only originality but also the gain of
time is lost if one has to read much more text to find the interesting one. Instead, encourage students to
be brief, to make efforts in formulating relevant labels to their texts, and to structure the messages in a
clever way to help the readers find relevant information (Chesebro & Bonsall, 1989).
FF A system could provide the possibility to label a contribution with keywords (Jansson, 1995),
or icons, symbolizing different kinds of contributions: e.g., own opinion, question, answer, something
read or heard (Hietala, 1998).
e) Text-based communication stimulates abstraction
CC The fact that the CMC is text-based implies the opportunity for learners to practice text for-
mulation (Sherman, 1995). Communication as such forces interlocutors to abstract their thinking
(Schwartz, 1999). Text-based CMC puts even stronger stress on this abstraction and externalization of
thought.
TT Try to integrate the practice of text formulation with the natural communication. Encourage
comments about the written text among students.
4.2 Motivation to Collaborate
a) Difficult to engage in group work
CC At a distance, with no visual cues, it is more difficult to influence people's feelings and
engagement. E.g., if students have lost their interest in the course, it is difficult for the teachers to
activate them (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1997a).
TT Formulate the task so that the knowledge of each member is valued, especially of those who
are silent or inactive (Fåhræus, 1999b). Use intrinsic motivation as far as possible, e.g., by letting
students choose tasks or topics to discuss that which interests them and by giving them knowledge that
they can see the need of (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1997a). Give tasks that force or stimulate students to
communicate their thoughts and to collaborate. Such tasks are additive (group productivity is the sum
of effort of all members) or conjunctive (all group members must succeed) (Sears et al., 1991). Dis-
junctive tasks, i.e., where only at least one member must succeed would ordinarily not be suitable.
Consider different kinds of activities, such as seminars, debates, simulations or games, role play, dis-
cussion groups, project groups, transcript-based assignments, brainstorming, Delphi techniques, and
nominal group techniques (from e.g., Paulsen, 1995, and Hiltz, 1995).
FF A system could provide means for students to choose tasks from lists, to vote about what to do
or to rate each other’s contributions.
b) The process of bonding in a group may be impeded
CC Bonding is much easier if members have met face to face first. In a CMC situation, we have to
compensate for this by presenting our goals and ourselves verbally. During the collaboration, cohesion
is built by action, like giving help when required, and delivering in time (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1998).
TT If possible, start the course with a face-to-face session. Plan for a special start-up task. Intro-
duce a forum for mutual help between students (Harasim et al., 1995; Fåhræus et al., 1999). Stress the
responsibility that each student has for the whole group (Fåhræus et al., 1999).
c) Resources of all group members should be utilized
CC The possibility to communicate anonymously in CMC can stimulate collaboration. A shy per-
son or a person with lower social status may be more active in a CMC situation than in a face-to-face
situation. The anonymity does not have to be formal but perceived. Without visibility, participants can
communicate without revealing their appearance. This might make some people more at ease (Hiltz &
Turoff, 1993; Elen & Clarebout, 1998). Odd appearance that culturally is devalued as e.g., ”attractive”,
”ugly”, or ”old”, is not influencing the communication (Hiltz & Turoff, 1993). According to some
researchers, this property makes CMC more democratic than face-to-face meetings (e.g., Harasim et
al., 1995). Old hierarchies and predefined roles seem to have less importance in CMC discussions.
CMC groups are more disorganized, and still, the resources of all group members are utilized
(Chesebro & Bonsall, 1989; Palme, 1981/1993). Other researchers (e.g., Ziv, 1996) claim that CMC
does not eliminate hierarchies, but reflect the existing hierarchy in the organization.
TT Use anonymous communication restrictively and only when agreed upon. Create safe areas
for questioning, without revealing the source (Fåhræus, 1999b). Declare the freedom for everybody to
take the lead. Encourage changes of roles and procedures. Formulate the task so that the knowledge of
each member is valued, especially those who are silent or inactive (ibid.).
FF A system can provide forums with the identity exchanged for a pseudonym and functions for
safe areas and for voting. It could also contain functions for turn-taking and role-playing.
d) Different views on technology for communication
CC The technological character of CMC can infuse a feeling of lack of humanity in some people.
When the locality is a virtual space, the meaning of it is unclear and needs to be the subject of negotia-
tions (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1997b; Harrison & Dourish, 1996). Social norms and rules used in face-
to-face situations are of no use here, according to Chesebro & Bonsall (1989).
TT Make sure that students have the required knowledge about the system and the technology.
Introduce a discussion about the impact of the technology on human communication and the symbolic
meaning of it. This discussion might result in consensus rules for the communication. Create a special
”place” for social student interaction (Harasim et al., 1995; Fåhræus et al., 1999).
FF A system should be easy to use and contain help functions. The layout of the system ought to
support the climate we want to create within the course, e.g., with the help of metaphors.
e) Decision-making less effective
CC In a decision situation or in goal-setting, when complex negotiation can be necessary, CMC is
not very efficient. A tool with higher 'richness' is needed (Adrianson & Hjelmquist, 1988; Hansen et al,
1999; Chesebro & Bonsall, 1989).
TT If possible, arrange synchronous communication means, e.g., chat, telephone conference, or
face-to-face meeting, for decision-making. If this is impossible, make students aware of the problem.
FF A system can provide voting and rating functions to support decision-making.
4.3 Efficient Access to Information
a) Access to information resources and resource persons
CC Through the electronic medium, the learners can reach a host of resources, e.g., electronically
saved documents, computing functions, and other human beings (Fåhræus et al., 1999). Learners can
get access to questions, answers and results from other learners (Chesebro & Bonsall, 1989). The
asynchronous mode makes this possibility even more convenient because there is always time to find
information from other sources before a question has to be answered.
TT Disseminate literature for a course over the medium or recommend sources on the Internet.
Learners can search for information they need from databases, libraries, etc. (Harasim et al., 1995).
The system becomes a vehicle for new exploration (Chesebro & Bonsall, 1989). Let the learning
network extend into campus-wide and social interaction (Fåhræus et al., 1999). Arrange for resource
persons to be available when relevant, and inform and encourage students to use them (Männikkö &
Fåhræus, 1997a; Harasim et al., 1995). Allow students to get access to answers to other students'
questions and to their results or assignments (Harasim et al., 1995).
FF A system could provide means for contact service to reach resource persons.
b) Possibility to go back and reconsider/reuse
CC The possibility to go back and reread can stimulate reflection regarding the content, the
learning, and the group processes (McDaniel et al., 1996). Contributions (or texts from other sources)
can be reused by commenting in the text or by re-writing parts of it.
TT If we tell students to go back and reflect on their own learning and group processes, they
might be able to build meta-knowledge about how to learn and how to collaborate. This can be done
through their writing diaries or by acting on other students' contributions (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1998;
Sherman, 1995).
c) Help to the teachers to follow group communication
CC The permanence of the medium helps the teachers to follow the group communication, which
normally is not possible when the group meets face to face (Fåhræus et al., 1999). This implies a big
workload on the teachers; but students can also help each other, thus freeing the teachers to do other
tasks.
TT Decide if you need access to the communication between members in a group. If you choose
to follow the communication in a group, declare to the members that you are doing so and why. Be
specific about your role, so that the students know if they are to report or put questions to you and if
they can expect you to comment on their discussion process or on the topic discussed. Give enough
feedback and support for students to feel confident and fade out support as soon as students manage
without it (Harasim et al., 1995). There are many ways to follow up students' learning process. Forma-
tive assessment is preferred, since it allows us to perform corrective actions during the course. One
way to follow up a group discussion is to read all contributions, but this is very time consuming. Other
instruments are self-evaluation and peer-evaluation (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1998; Fåhræus, 2000b).
FF A system could support the teachers with simplifying feedback functions and overviews of
students’ contributions and the evaluations from teachers and students (Fåhræus, 2000b). It could also
send reminders or other feedback to students, depending on their behaviour, e.g., those who have not
delivered in time (Harasim et al., 1995).
5. Conclusions
Forum systems can be made into more effective instruments for collaborative learning. Teachers and
designers should be aware of these opportunities.
By being attentive to the learners’ different needs and motivations, teachers can adapt the tasks and
learning formats, thus taking advantage of the possibilities and avoiding problems with forum systems.
Designers should provide their forum systems with support functions that would create new possibili-
ties for teachers and learners.
References
Adrianson, L., & Hjelmquist, E. (1988). User’s experiences of COM - A computer-mediated
communication system. Behaviour and information technology, 7 (1), 79-99.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. London: Allen
Lane/Penguin.
Chesebro, J. W., & Bonsall, D. G. (1989). Computer-mediated communication: Human
relationships in a computerized world. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: University Press.
Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational
approaches. Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by "Collaborative learning"? . In P.
Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The Evolution of Research
on Collaborative Learning. In P. Reimann, & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in Humans and Machines.
Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science (pp 189-211). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (Eds.). (1998). Learning about the European parliament: Collabo-
ration, problem-solving, and support in rich technological environments. Deliverable 3.1 of the
ParlEuNet-project: Theoretical research report on the four pedagogical models.
Fjuk, A. (1998). Computer support for distributed collaborative learning. Exploring a com-
plex problem area. Dr. Scient. Thesis 5, University of Oslo, Dept. of Informatics.
Fåhræus, E. R. (1999a). Tutoring group learning at a distance. In J. D. Price, J. Willis, D. A,
Willis, M. Jost, & S. Boger-Mehall (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology
and Teacher Education International Conference (SITE’99, March, 1999), San Antonio, Texas.
Fåhræus, E. R. (1999b). Creative tutoring of electronic collaborative learning groups: Sus-
taining the human factor. Notes from a workshop at the TET’99 Conference on Telecommunications
for Education and Training, Gjøvik, Norway.
Fåhræus, E. R. (2000a). Growing knowledge – How to support collaborative learning e-
discussions in forum systems. Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University/KTH,
Report series No. 00-005.
Fåhræus, E. R. (2000b). Student interaction stimulates learning beyond grading in asyn-
chronous electronic discussions. Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm Univer-
sity/KTH, Report series No. 00-008.
Fåhræus, E.R. (Co-chair), Chamberlain, B. (Co-chair), Bridgeman, N., Fuller, U., & Rugelj,
J. (1999). Teaching with Electronic Collaborative Learning Groups. Report of the ITiCSE'99 Work-
ing Group on Creative Teaching of Electronic Collaborative Learning Groups. In SIGCSE Bulletin -
Inroads, Volume 31, Number 4, December 1999 (pp 121 - 128). The Working Group Reports of the
4th Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Edu-
cation ITiCSE'99, Cracow, Poland, June 27 - July 1, 1999.
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Technological
Education, 7 (1).
Hansen, T., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Lewis, R., & Rugelj, J. (1999). Using telematics for
collaborative knowledge construction. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning. Cognitive and
computational approaches (pp. 168-196). Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide
to teaching and learning online. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Harrison, S., & Dourish, P. (1996). Re-place-ing space: The roles of place and space in col-
laborative systems. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Conputer Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW), Boston, USA. Nov. 1996, pp. 67-76.
Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and
cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hietala, P. (1998). Procedural facilitation in Web discussions. In G. Davies, (Ed.), Pro-
ceedings of the XV. IFIP World Computer Congress, Vienna and Budapest, 1998 (pp. 445-454).
Hiltz, S. R. (1995). Teaching in a virtual classroom. Proceedings of ICCAI’95, Hsinchu,
Taiwan.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation. Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original
work published 1978).
Jansson, K. (1995). Specialfunktioner i konferenssystem för att stödja distansundervisning.
(Special functions in conference systems to support distance education.) Retrieved Nov. 6, 2000 from
the World Wide Web: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/kent-speciella-funkt.html
Kollock, P., & Smith, M. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict
in computer communities. In S. C. Herring (Ed.). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic,
social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Pp. 109-128).
Mantovani, G. (1996). New Communication Environments: From Everyday to Virtual.
London: Taylor & Francis.
McDaniel, S. E., Olson, G. M., & Magee, J. C. (1996). Identifying and Analyzing Multiple
Threads in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Conversations. Proceedings of ACM Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'96), Cambridge, MA, USA.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Männikkö, S., & Fåhræus, E. R. (1997a). Spin a Web Between the School and the World. In
J. Hine (Ed.). Proceedings of Internet Society Conference The Internet: Global frontiers (INET'97,
June, 1997). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Männikkö, S., & Fåhræus, E. R. (1997b). Creating Places For Teaching and Learning. Pro-
ceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Technology and Education (ICTE'97), Oslo,
Norway.
Männikkö, S., & Fåhræus, E. R. (1998). "Are you still there?!" - About Mediated Commu-
nication in Teaching and Learning. Teleteaching '98 Distance Learning, Training and Education. In
G. Davies (Ed.), Proceedings of the XV. IFIP World Computer Conference, Vienna and Budapest.
(Pp. 667-678).
Palme, J. (1981/93). Experience with the use of the COM computerized conferencing
system. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://dsv.su.se/jpalme/reports/c10166.pdf.
Palme, J. (1995). Electronic mail. Norwood, USA: Artech House.
Paulsen, M. F. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. In Z. L. Berge, & M.
P. Collins (Eds.). Distance learning. Computer-mediated communication (Vol. III, pp. 81-90).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Schwartz, D. L. (1999). The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. In P.
Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 198-218).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.
Sherman, L.W. (1995). A postmodern, constructivist pedagogy for educational psychology,
assisted by computer mediated communications. In Prodeedings of the ACM Conference on Com-
puter Supported Cooperative Work (CSCL’95), Bloomington, Indiana.
Ziv, O. (1996). Writing to work: How using e-mail can reflect technological and organiza-
tional change. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and
cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 243-263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.