Learning Theories Supporting Collaboration

Dillenbourg (Dillenbourg 1994) identifies three different theories of learning that could be employed in collaborative learning systems:
-socio-constructivist theory
-socio-cultural theory
-shared cognition theory

Each theory relates the student's learning to a typical learning environment. These three approaches are classified as cognitive developmental approaches that focus on the interactions among peers around appropriate tasks in a given environment that would increase the mastery of critical concepts. Socio-constructivist theory advocates that students master new approaches of learning through interacting with others (Doise1990). This theory is an extension of Piaget's (Piaget1928, Piaget1932) theory that focused on the reasons for cognitive developments in individuals. In socio-constructivist theory, emphasis is given to interactions rather than actions themselves. A given level of individual development allows participation in certain social interactions which produce new individual states which, in turn, make possible more sophisticated social interactions, and so on (Dillenbourg, 1994).

The socio-constructivist approach focuses on the individual's development with respect to the social interaction, without really differentiating or identifying the underlying factors that enhance collaborative learning. Here the social interaction is assumed as a black box that boosts collaborative learning.

The experimental setup for the socio-constructivist approach follows a three stage process of pre-test, individual or collaborative learning and post-test. The differences between individual and collaborative learning are identified with respect to the difference between the performances on the pre- and post-test. A number of empirical studies have been reported to validate this approach (Doise & Mugny 1984, Blaye 1990, Blaye 1989, Durfee, Lesser., & Corkill 1989, Gasser 1991).

Socio-cultural theory focuses on the causal relationship between social interaction and the individual's cognitive development. This approach is derived from Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (Vygotsky1978). In this approach, each internal cognitive change is mapped onto a causal effect of a social interaction. In Vygotsky's own words:
The Zone of Proximal Development is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky1978).
This essentially means that a learner would use the technique(s) that are learned during the collaborative effort with the companion when the learner tries a similar problem independently. That is, self review by the student is the internalization of peer review. The zone of proximal development defines meta-conceptions that might evolve as learned concepts after a period of social interactions. Thus, the inter-psychological processes are internalized during social interactions. Based on this theory, Dillenbourg and Self (Dillenbourg & Self 1992b) developed a computational model. In general, the socio-cultural approach supports collaboration as the means that would prove to be the catalyst to help the meta-conceptions mature into learned concepts.

Shared cognition theory is different from the other two theories in the sense that the environment in which learning takes place is given the focus rather than the environment-independent cognitive processes. The environment consists of both physical context and social context. The previous two approaches attributed the learning only to the physical context. But the shared cognition approach places the focus squarely on the social context that is claimed to make the collaborations happen and not just the presence of the collaborators. Shared cognition aims at letting the peers learn knowledge and skills in contexts where they are applicable (Brown, Collins, & Duguid1988, Lave & Wenger1991). Some advantages of the situated cognition approach are:

1. By linking together specific contexts and the knowledge to be learned, peers learn conditions under which the knowledge should be applied.
2. Situations foster creative thinking. Peers often learn how the knowledge they have can be applied in new situations.
3. Situatedness leads to the acquired knowledge being more practical in nature.
According to this approach, collaboration is viewed as a process of building and maintaining a shared conception of a problem, thus ensuring a natural learning environment.

Moore (1996) describes the importance of distinguishing between three types of learner interaction – learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner.

In learner-content interaction, learners effectively “talk to themselves” about the information and the ideas they encounter. An extreme example would be self-study from a text in a library.
In learner-instructor interaction, learning effectively takes place from a “sage on the stage”, who supposedly imparts knowledge and wisdom to the students. This is still by far the most common method employed by most educational institutions, from primary schools through to universities.
In learner-learner interaction, students help themselves to learn, by sharing ideas and discussing problems, often in a real or virtual group setting. This is clearly the least common and least conventional of the three modes of interaction, but one of the most exciting for those interested in online delivery, since the use of online forums and email lists generally enable group discussion to a far greater extent than is possible in a conventional lecture / tutorial environment.
Granger and Bowman (2003) give the following as essential for building a
learning environment:
-Learner centeredness created within a context familiar to the learner.
-Individual construction of knowledge directed toward goals important to the learner.
-Contextual or experimental learning characterized by authentic interactions within the learning context (or community).