Potential of computer-supported collaborative learning for learners with different learning styles

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 75-85

  Christine Wang, X ^a   Michelle Hinn, D ^a   Kanfer, Alaina G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

CSCL; Diversity; Learning styles; Rolb's LSI

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007869599     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2001.10782335     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The structuring of structures: Development and function of mathematizing as a social practice. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Crmstructivism in education (pp. 137-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associaes.
2. Bostrom, R. P., Olfman, L., & Sein, M. K. (1990). The importance of learning style in end-user training. MIS Quarterly, 14, 101-119.
3. Cobb, P. (1984). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspective on mathematical development. Educational Psychology, 76, 1051-1058.
4. Coggins, C. C. (1988). Preferred learning styles and their impact on completion of external degree programs. American journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 25-37.
5. Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4-36.
6. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
7. Ehrman, M. (1990). Psychological factors and distance education. American journal of Distance Education, 4(1), 10-24.
8. Everett, D. R. (1998). Taking instruction online: The art of delivery. CSS journal [Online serial], 8(2). Available: www.cssjournal.com/everett.html.
9. Gunawardena, C., & Boverie, P. E. (1993, November). Impact ?flearr.ing styles on instructional design for distance education. Paper presented at the World Conference of the International Council of Distance Education, Bangkok, Thailand. (ERIC No. ED 359 926)
10. Hara N., & Kling, R. (2000). Students' distress with a Web-based distance education course: A taboo topic in the discourse [Online document]. Available: www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/wp00-01.html.
11. Haythornwaite, C. (1999, January). Collaborative work networks amc·ng distributed learners. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Confircnce on System Sciences [Online document]. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Available: http://dlib.computer.org/conferenthicss/0001/pdf/00011023.pdf
12. Hinn, D. H., Kanfer, A., & Wang, X. C. (2000, October/November). Evaluating online learning initiatives ftom multiple perspectives. Presented at the American Evaluation Association (AEA) annual conference, Honolulu, HI.
13. Hsu, T. E., Frederick, F. J., & Chung, M. L. (1994). Effects of learner cognitive styles and metacognitive tools on information acquisition paths and learning in hyperspace environments. In M. R. Simonson, M. J. Maushak, & K. L. Abu-Omar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 291-308). Washington, DC: Association for Education Communications and Technology. (ERIC No. ED 373 721)
14. Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Author.
15. Jegede, O. J., Fraser, B., & Curtin, D. F. (1995). The development and validation of a distance and open learning environment scale. Educational Technology Research & Development, 43(1), 90-94.
16. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1985).Cooperative learning: One key to computerassisted learning. The Computing Teacher, 13, 11-13.
17. Johnson, S.D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (1999). Comparative analysis of online vs. face-to-face instruction [Online document]. Available: www.outreach.uiuc.edu/hre/public/comparison.pdf
18. Kanfer, A., Thakkar, U., Moore, J., & Michaels, J. (1999). Alliance prototype distributed learning environment: Emerging technologies for science, education and business. International journal of Educational Technology [Online serial], 1 (2). Available: www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v1n2/kanferlindex.html
19. Keefe, J. W (1979). Learning style: An overview. In Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
20. Keller, J. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 386-434). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22. Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory: Technical manual Boston: McBer & Co.
23. Kolodner, J., & Guzdial, M (1996). Effects with and of CSCL: Tracking learning in a new paradigm. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and praaice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 307-320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
24. Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
25. Larsen, R. E. (1992). Relationship oflearning style to the effectiveness and acceptance of interactive video instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(1), 17-21.
26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
27. Levin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Moldafsky, N. I., & Kwon, I. (1994). Attributes affecting computer-aided decision making: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(3), 299-323.
29. Mory, E., Gambill, L., & Browning, J. B. (1998, March). Instruction on the Web: The online student's perspective. Paper presented at SITE 98: Society of Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Washington, DC.
30. NCSA technology research group [Online document]. (1999). Urbana, IL: National Center for Supercomputing Applications. Available: www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/edu/trg
31. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
32. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Sein, M. K., & Robey, D. (1991). Learning style and the efficacy of computer training methods. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 243-248.
34. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157-180.
35. Sims, R. R., Veres, J. G., III, Watson, P. & Buckner, K. E. (1986). The reliability and classification stability of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI-1985). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 753-760.
36. Slavin R. E. (1989). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997). Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance learning. The Academy of Management journal 40(6), 1282-1309.
39. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks [Online serial], 2(1). Available: www.aln.org/alnweb/journalljaln_vol2issue1.htm.
40. Whyte, M. M, Karolick, D. M., Nielsen, M. C., Elder, G. D., & Hawley, W T. (1995). Cognitive styles and feedback in computer-assisted instruction. journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(2), 195-203.
41. Wooldridge, B. (1995). Increasing the effectiveness of university/college instruction: Integrating the results of learning style research into course design and delivery. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of/earning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 49-67). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.