Almost as helpful as good theory: some
conceptual possibilities for the online classroom

Mike Davis* and Kate Denning**
*LearningTechnology Research Institute, University of North London

**Research and Graduate School of Education, University of Manchester

email: mike.davis@unl.ac.uk

Interest and activity in the use of C&IT in higher education is growing, and while there is
effort to understand the complexity of the transition to virtual space, aspects of
development, particularly clarity about the nature of the learning community, may only
be lightly theorized. Based on an ongoing action research study involving postgraduate
students studying in the UK and USA, this paper will identify some theoretical roots and
derive from these six conceptual areas that seem to the authors to have relevance and
significance for behaviour online. An exploration of these forms the basis for a two-
dimensional model which can account for what happens when groups come together to
learn in cyberspace. In depicting this model, there is acknowledgement of the existence of
third and fourth dimensions at work. However, the explanatory power of taking these
extra dimensions into account is beyond the scope of the analysis thus far.

Introduction

Current interest in the use of Communications and Information Technology (C&IT) in
higher education and other settings is at a high level (for example, Framework V: Towards
a User-Friendly Information Society; the ESRC Programme PACCIT) and while
universities - in response to the Dearing Report - begin to exercise effort in restructuring
course delivery methods to take advantage of the technology, there is a danger that the
issue of the changes in the social dynamics that are a direct consequence of the transition
from actual space to virtual space will be overlooked. Some work has been undertaken in
this area (notably Rheingold, 1991; Cook, 1995; McConnell, Hardy and Hodgson, 1996)
but there is need for additional research if we are to identify a clearer sense of how effective
online learning might manifest itself. We agree with Jones (1998), however, that the
technology presents considerable challenges in establishing and maintaining communities:

64



ALT-J Volume 9 Number 2

The learning process may bring people together insofar as such learning is often
collaborative, but it is equally as often frustrating and off-putting. (Jones, 1998: 8)

This paper will explore an approach to postgraduate education which depends on online
collaborative construction of knowledge, drawing on students' past experience and new
understanding gained on the course. There are other models of practice employing
computer-mediated communication (CMC) in postgraduate teaching, but it has been
decided to limit the scope of this paper to action science groups (Argyris, Putnam and
Smith, 1986) because the nature of the work undertaken by these small groups is intense
and personal, providing fertile ground for the creation of the learning community which is
the focus of the research. Action Science has been described as 'the science of
interpersonal action' (Argyris, 1993) and is an approach to personal and organizational
development. Action science employs a number of methods by which participants examine
their work-based defensive routines and look to change their underlying theories-in-use to
produce more positive and effective ones. Participants of all six cohorts under
consideration here wrote case studies which were then interrogated online by their small
group and the two facilitators. A case study in this context is a written record of a
remembered conversation about which the case writer feels dissatisfied for some reason. It
was expected that learning will occur at two levels. Firstly, each case writer has the
opportunity to gain insight into his or her own defensive routines as played out in the
original dialogue. Secondly, all group members learn the specific questioning skills
required of an action scientist, enhance their ability to spot underlying inconsistencies in a
conversation and gain practice in rewriting statements in a new format which is more likely
to lead to mutual learning and win-win outcomes.

It is felt that each group within the six cohorts that represents our data set has
demonstrated some vivid characteristics. We consider that this rich environment is a source
of real insights into the challenges offered by CMC in creating learning communities and
this has enabled us to develop a model that goes some way to describing the characteristics
of these communities.

There have been almost fifty years of research and theorizing about the way in which
groups of various sizes function in a variety of face-to-face settings, including some in
higher education classrooms and lecture theatres. Research into CMC has a much shorter
history. An examination of the literature persuades us that it is easy to make incorrect
assumptions about the characteristics of the online classroom. CMC is often seen simply
as another process which can be incorporated into existing thinking and practice, rather
than one requiring a shift in conceptualization: about teaching and learning; about groups;
and about the effect of technology on their structure and function. As Fernback noted,

We know already that many of the assumptions we hold about the negotiation and
formation of social relationships, and particularly about community, do not seem to
apply in the complex realm of CMC. (Fernback, 1999: 205)

Not surprisingly, the rhetoric and some of the practice of teaching and learning see CMC
as a potential pedagogy for higher education as the capacity of the medium to deliver
course materials and to generate interactivity between lecturers and students and among
the student body becomes apparent. While the move towards the virtual campus cannot be
ignored, there is the need to identify some of its characteristics and the theories underlying

65



Mike Davis and Kate Denning Almost as helpful as good theory: some conceptual possibilities for the online classroom

the practice. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to explore some of the theory that
contributes towards an effective understanding of what takes place when groups of
students meet and learn online. In common with standard practice, students' names have
been changed. Their contributions to discussion, however, are uncorrected.

Some theoretical possibilities

While not believing that activity in cyberspace has direct analogies with face-to-face
experiences, our thinking is shaped by attention to two main theoretical sources: group
dynamics - both from a sociological (Miller, 1993) and a psychoanalytical perspective
(Bion, 1961) - and situated learning, particularly its focus on notions of communities of
practice, socially constructed knowledge and authentic activity (McLellan, 1996). In the
limited space we have available for this paper, we will go no further than claiming a
relationship between the components of situated learning identified by McLellan, onto
which we have mapped online experience of working with action science.

Key component Online experience of action science

Stories The case studies

Reflection Reflecting on and in action through case study interrogation and rewrites

Cognitive apprenticeship Working with 'expert' facilitators

Collaboration Working collaboratively to reveal defensive routines and to seek win-win

alternatives

Coaching Deliberate teaching and modelling of good action science interrogation

Multiple practice Successive cases during which time participants become more skilled and

confident

Articulation of learning skills The construction of a metadialogue to inform a group's practice and

achievement

Technology Making appropriate use of the available technology.

Table I: Relationship between key components of situated learning and online experiences of action

science

Our thinking, dominated at the time by consideration of group dynamics, led us to reflect
on six conceptual areas which seem to be powerful ingredients in the online classroom:

• social organization

• orientation towards learning

• orientation towards task and/or tutor

• group work modality

• emotional climate

• group response to challenge.

66



ALT-J Volume 9 Number 2

Social organization

While communication online can be task-based there is an expectation that other, non-task
but socially essential communication will contribute to the growth and sustenance of the
community. Sociolinguists call this phatic communication (Stubbs, 1983), and it is seen as
essential to maintain effective social interaction. It has been argued (Feenberg, 1989) that
CMC is poor at fulfilling these phatic functions. He writes: 'AH such phatic signs are
bypassed in computer conferencing. Even standard codes for opening and closing
conversations are discarded' (Feenberg, 1989: 22).

This is particularly problematic in online communication because there is only the single,
textual cue available for inspection in contrast with the multiple cues that exist in face-to-
face communication. Evidence from previous studies in CMC (Davis, 1997; Davis and
Holt, 1998) suggests that this form of interchange may not arise spontaneously and its
absence can contribute towards social isolation and withdrawal. There are models that
suggest that remediation of this is possible using a number of straightforward strategies,
such as sending private email messages, directing comments at individuals and modelling
responsiveness (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles and Turoff, 1995; Midoro, 1999). The research is key
both to identify and to refine appropriate facilitation strategies to maximize effective
learner participation and interdependence. Positive outcomes of well-timed and well-
crafted tutor interventions include independence and community. However, whilst
independence can be a rewarding outcome of a learning experience, it can also work
against effective community membership.

Orientation towards learning

Orientation towards learning has two related continua:

individual >- cooperative >- collaborative

dependent >- independent >- interdependent

Collaborative, interdependent learning, which is that discovered in a learning community,
can be understood 'as a distributed, ongoing social process, where evidence that learning is
occurring or has occurred must be found in understanding the ways in which people
collaboratively do learning and do recognize learning as having occurred' (Jordan, 1996:
42). Collaborative learning occurs when participants mutually engage 'in a coordinated
effort to solve [a] problem together' (Roschelle and Behrend, 1995: 70). Whipple describes
the benefits of collaborative learning:

collaboration results in a level of knowledge within the group that is greater than the
sum of the knowledge of the individual participants. Collaborative activities lead to
emergent knowledge, which is the result of interaction between (not summation of) the
understandings of those who contribute to its formation. (Whipple, 1987: 5).

In contrast, Hiltz, describing the software they use, writes: "This assignment was carried
out using the 'activity branch' software. In a response branch, each student must answer
the question before being able to read the answer of others' (Hiltz, 1994: 59).

This kind of structure may work counter to attempts at building a learning community.
Whilst the focus is on ensuring that the individual learner thinks, then an interactive

67



Mike Davis and Kate Denning Almost as helpful as good theory: some conceptual possibilities for the online classroom

building of ideas is absent and it becomes unlikely that collaborative learning can take
place or a learning community emerge.

Orientation towards task/tutor

A classic depiction (Bennis and Shepard, 1956) of group life is that it can be divided into
two main phases: dependence-power relations and interdependence-personal relations, and it
is this that determines the orientation towards the task and the tutor. In dependence-power
relations, students engage in flight from the task through avoidance and reliance on social
engagement to occupy time. Counterdependency - a metaphorical fight with authority -
can also emerge. The shift into interdependence-personal relations leads to conditions where
there is considerably less dependence on external authority - either in the shape of the task
or the tutor - and the development of a shared sense of responsibility for group
performance. In online communities, this can create conditions in which members feel
addicted to the process. In sharp contrast to this condition is the total separation of self
from others: the condition of anomie 'when members of a superficially well-organised
society feel disconnected and isolated' (Reber, 1995: 39).

Group work modality

Group life can also be characterized from a more psychological perspective, originally
modelled by WDfred Bion (Bion, 1961). Fundamental to Bion's thinking about groups is
that membership of them is part of the human condition. As he wrote: 'no individual,
however isolated in time and space, can be regarded as outside a group, or lacking in active
manifestations of group psychology' (Bion, 1961:132).

Bion proposed that groups work at two levels. Work groups function effectively, engage
with the task and with one another and attend to the needs of the group. According to
Bion, however, whilst a group is operating in 'work' mode it is also capable of being
subverted at any one time by one of the three basic assumptions - dependence, flight/fight
or pairing.

A group moves into basic assumption dependency whenever it is reliant on a leader and
believes that the leader will control, make decisions and rein in any passions that are too
threatening to the safety of the group. A group in conflict or under pressure will often
move into denial manifest as flight (running away from a difficult issue to talk about 'safer'
topics) or fight (usually a verbal struggle). A group is considered to be in basic assumption
pairing when two members of the group are heavily involved in a discussion and the
remainder of the group is silent but attentive. It is likely that a series of pairs will emerge,
each dominating the discussion for a while. Basic assumption groups are thought to be
mutually exclusive: for example, a group in basic assumption pairing cannot demonstrate
flight/fight or dependency-type behaviour. It is possible for a group to move readily from
one basic assumption to another.

Emotional climate
All of the above conditions represent a challenge to the group and this challenge
contributes towards an emotional reaction, either shared or individual. Among these, we
have identified indifference (real or otherwise), frustration, off-task fascination, and

68



ALT-J Volume 9 Number 2

anxiety. The first three are counterproductive in respect of the success of the group and/or
its task completion. The latter can be productive or its opposite: too high anxiety
invariably leads to ineffectiveness or, in the worst case, withdrawal; too low is insufficient to
drive the motor of learning.

Group response to challenge

Groups respond to challenge at different times in different ways. Our experience has led us
to identify four responses: groups that become hostile to the task reveal passive resistance
or aggression, often by showing little interest in the activity; others deny that there is a
problem when attempts are made to establish dialogue about the events unfolding. Others
become fascinated with membership of the group and are seduced by the social aspects of
their communication. Successful groups, however, engage in risk-taking: challenging other
members, indeed challenging themselves, to push the margins of what is possible.

Discussion

In an attempt to gain some insight into how these conceptual areas might inter-relate, we
chose a 2 x 2 matrix (see Figure 1) to characterize four archetypal groups.

High (9)

Learning
Dynamics

Low(l)

Type 9.1-"I'm ok,
you're ok!"

1. Independence
2. Co-operative
3. Counter-

dependency
4. Flight
5. Frustration
6. Denial

Type 1.1-
"Fragmented by

technologies"
1. Isolation
2. Dependent
3. Anomie
4. Flight
5. Indifference
6. Passive resistance

Type 9 . 9 - "Tough
Love"

1. Community
2. Collaborative
3. Addiction
4. Work
5. Anxiety
6. Risk-taking

Type 1.9 - "Summer
Holiday"

1. Displacement
2. Individual
3. Avoidance
4. Pairing
5. Off-task

fascination
6. Seduction

•

Conceptual key
1. Social organization
2. Orientation towards

learning
3. Orientation towards

task/tutor
4. Group work

modality
5. Emotional climate
6. Group response to

challenge

L o w ( l ) Group Dynamics High (9)

Figure /: Group functioning in cyberspace (Davis and Denning 2000)

Fragmented by technologies ( I . I )
A group which is low on both learning and group dynamics may have very little activity
and will not be concerned about the group processes nor will it be effective in its learning
objectives. Members will be isolated from one another and their approach to learning,
where it exists, is individual. Socially, group members are isolated and their basic
assumption is flight - from the task and any discussion about the task. This leads to public



Mike Davis and Kate Denning Almost as helpful as good theory some conceptual possibilities for the online classroom

indifference (despite email messages that indicate private frustration and anger) and a
group strategy of passive resistance or aggression. Whilst successful groups showed
themselves willing to build upon each other's ideas and create new levels of understanding,
other groups never gained any momentum:

Hilary: I am not really enjoying our group interaction. It is very slow and uninvolved
and the communication levels are very low. I am finding it hard to find questions to ask.
I don't know why.

A willingness to avoid the task and discussion about the task is well summed up by one
case-writer who commented on his own case as follows:

Jack: i [sic] have reviewed your input, and appreciated your interest, the questions that
were asked will help me focus on the situation.

Since this particular casewriter only made two interventions into his own case (the average
for one of the cohorts was twenty-six) this represents 50 per cent of his output and clearly
the experience has made little positive impact on him and the rest of the group.

Summer Holiday (1.9)
If a group is high on group dynamics but low on learning dynamics then group members
may be having a lot of fun whilst achieving little learning. Here, members are displaced
from normal life and they demonstrate self-interest and individuality. Work is avoided and
the complex notion of basic assumption pairing is acted out. In this, the group waits for a
magical event to emerge from possible pairing of other participants. Accordingly, they can
be high on social interaction - invariably manifested through social 'conversation' at the
expense of work. Indeed, the social is the dominant theme in this type of group and this, of
course, can be very satisfying for the members and is very seductive. The following example
demonstrates a group being hampered by notions of the need to be inclusive whilst at the
same time struggling with the process of making decisions online.

Laura: since nobody is taking the initiative but everybody seems to share the view (at least
this is what I make out of it) I would like to see how many of you could make it for an on
line session, real time sometime this satarday [sic] or Sunday afternoon. This is the time that
I can make it if you think that some other time is more convinient [sic] please suggest it.

This comment came in week four of seven weeks when the group had already been
discussing meeting synchronously (at the same time as each other) since the first week. It
seems likely that the social element was so important for this group that the thought of
meeting up at a time that didn't suit all of them was unthinkable. The group continued to
resist moves by various members to experiment with synchronous communication until, in
week six, the following intervention from one of the tutors coincided with the most
innovative member being more proactive about her desires.

Jack: Would 7pm on tonight and on Wednesday night suit everyone?

Kate (Facilitator): I think trying to get everyone may be a mistake. All you need is the
casewriter and one or two others. More is obviously great, but not essential. I sense
waiting for everyone to agree could mean that yet again you fail to meet.

70



ALT-J Volume 9 Number 2

Jack: that's true, Kate . . . I had forgotten that that time would not be convenient for all
. . . so who will meet me on line . . . I'll be here at 7.00pm.

And she was. Those that met up with her clearly enjoyed 'being' together, but continued to
use the time in a largely social way. Although the group had managed to overcome one of
its difficulties (making decisions) it was unable to work against the by now well established
norm of social activity dominating the work space.

I'm ok, you're ok (9.1)

If a group is high on learning dynamics but low on group dynamics then members will
show little concern for each other personally and will tend to work independently rather
than interdependently. One group whose group strategy we have characterized as denial
had the following conversation:

Megan: I am aware that there are a number of things I have been thinking but not saying
and I wonder if this is true for others also.

Rod: M, I too feel that perhaps we aren't as active as we could be. But I am OK with it.

Here Rod refused to take up the gauntlet, preferring to work in her own way which Megan
later described as 'bullying'.

Such groups are capable of acting co-operatively rather than collaboratively. In the latter,
understanding and insight grow from the social construction of knowledge. In the former, it is
more competitive and individual understanding and insight is the desired outcome, possibly at
the expense of others' learning. Inevitably, groups who find themselves in this situation
demonstrate counter-dependent behaviour with frequent (although invariably unsuccessful)
appeals to authority to deal with the problematic group dynamics. Equally inevitably, tutors are
held responsible for their failure to make the groups work more effectively and members deny
their collective and individual responsibilities for the difficulties the group is experiencing.

Below is an extract from a group who struggled and looked to the tutors to make the
interaction more productive.

Sue: MikeD, Kate, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that in order for a case to be
completed, it was necessary to provide the 'interrogated' with a TIU. This didn't happen
in my case.

Kelly: yes, S. I am also interested in getting an answer to this question, you will
remember that I raised a similar concern to Kate and MikeD last time when my case was
discussed, but I did not get any satisfactory response. As for MikeD, he did not even
bother to comment on the issue. With Kate it was better because, even if she did not
answer my question, she at least asked me questions in relation to the issue.

Here we have two group members whose primary concern is that they gain from the
experience without necessarily giving to the rest of the group. Both are requesting a theory-
in-use from members of the group, neither were very forthcoming in giving them to others.
This demonstrates a group attempting to learn individually in an environment set up for
collaborative learning. It is not possible to do action science alone. If it were possible they
would have done it!

71



Alike Davis and Kate Denning Almost as helpful as good theory: some conceptual possibilities for the online classroom

Tough Love (9.9)
Groups who manage both group dynamics and learning dynamics get as close as is possible
to becoming a learning community. They behave in a collaborative manner, in particular in
checking out assumptions and perceptions with other group members.

Kate: I'm going to be really mean now Rod and assume that 'Ooh that's harsh' means I
hit the nail on the head there. Is my assumption correct?

The work of the group takes on an incredible pace and volume: students report logging in
at all times of the day and night and many independently have talked of how addictive the
process is.

Jackie: I agree about this becoming somewhat addictive. I find myself wanting to
checking [sic] several times daily.

The consequence of volume and intensity is that considerable insight is developed into the
interpersonal processes under exploration through the action science cases.

Jackie: What has been very revealing for me in these 2 days has been the emotion evoked
at my keyboard. I have had more than a couple of moments where a light has come on, a
bell clanged, or several ahas. I've been all teared up in several of my responses tonight.
I've experienced many things sitting and reflecting [...] What I find so amazing and
possibly the real truth is how all of you see through my coverup.

Action science, as an organizational intervention, is very powerful but it can raise high
levels of anxiety given that the design is to explore participants' interpersonal
incompetence. Frequently people act out the characteristics of their case during
interrogation, and that makes necessary risk-taking. One group had a difficult first
week with only three of its members contributing actively to the discussion. After several
days Pete (following email correspondence with one of the facilitators) posted this
message:

Pete: I have been following but rather in what to me is an awkward position. I don't
know why I suddenly chose to be an observer in this discussion...

He received a number of responses from the active members letting him know how hard
they had been working to keep the group moving with such low 'attendance'. One of the
replies indicated a broader awareness both of the effect his silence had on the group and of
the reciprocal nature of the work.

Jackie: I realise that it isn't always easy [sic] to get to your computer but if we can at least
check in at the beginning of the cases and if we are not going to be able to make
comments for whatever reasons at least inform each other of that so that we are aware of
what is going on. I think this would help us all to work more effectively as a group. We
are all presenting cases here and I assume that we would all like all members of the
group to contribute to this otherwise how can we be a group??

This marks a clear challenge to the 'observer' stance Pete had been taking - if you want us
to work for you, then you have to work for us. Pete took up the challenge, apologized to the
group and began making effective interventions. This early friction was one of the key
moments for this group who went on to produce some high-quality work.

72



ALT-J Volume 9 Number 2

As has been mentioned earlier one of the elements of the group whose orientation towards
learning is collaborative is that the knowledge is constructed together by the sharing of
thoughts, feelings and knowledge. This building of ideas results in higher-order insights
than might be gained individually. One participant commented on how the group seemed
to be building individual lines of enquiry rather than working together, which, whilst it was
true, was a comment which itself was part of the following scaffold:

Kelly: I find Karen [facilitator] has made an intervention that has set me thinking . . .

Jackie: Just to tag on to K's response...

Megan: Good job K you've hit a big problem on the h e a d . . . maybe one solution is . . .

Our model, as it stands, assigns to each of the six conceptual areas four potential states to
correspond to the creation of four ideal group types. This, however, is a misrepresentation
of the complexity of the model we have created, as much as anything else for neatness of
exposition. What we are aware of is a third dimension, not accommodated by the 2 by 2
matrix, which can indicate possible alternative alignments of the various characteristics of
behaviour and their interrelationship. This we have designated depth (the fact that a
conceptual area can be manifest in a number of ways) and see it as the third dimension of
the model which as yet remains in its infancy. The danger, however, here is that we fall into
the trap identified by Aarseth:

the race is on to conquer and colonise these [learning technologies] for our existing
paradigms and theories, often in the form of 'the theoretical perspective of <fill in your
favourite theory/theoretician here> is clearly really a prediction/description of <fill in
your favourite digital medium here>.' This method is being used with permutational
efficiency throughout the fields of digital technology and critical theory, two unlikely
tango partners indeed. But the combinatorial process shows no sign of exhaustion yet.
(Aarseth, 1999: 31)

At least we are aware of this risk, and we will remind ourselves of it from time to time.

Conclusion

So, what, if anything, can we conclude? The model depicted in Figure 1 was the product of
inspiration and intuition based on our iterative analysis of data collected over a three-year
period and it feels as if it has some explanatory power. We plan to re-examine our data in
an attempt to confirm the accuracy of the conclusions we have drawn. We then want to
examine other data from other online courses that are similar in nature to see if the model,
as it currently stands, is robust. Then we might be able to tackle the third dimension, depth,
and the, as yet unmentioned, fourth dimension of time.

References

Aarseth, E. (1999), 'Aporia and epiphany in doom and the speaking clock: the temporality
of ergodic art', in M. Ryan (ed.), Cyberspace Textuality: Computer Technology and Literary
Theory, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Argyris, C. (1993), Knowledge for Action, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

73



Mike Davis and Kate Denning Almost as helpful as good theory: some conceptual possibilities for the online classroom

Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D. (1986), Action Science, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bennis, W. and Shepard, H. (1956), 'A theory of group development', Human Relations, IX
(4), 415-38.

Bion, W. (1961), Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, London: Tavistock.

Cook, D. (1995), 'Community and computer-generated distance learning environments',
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 67, 33-9.

Davis, M. (1997), 'Fragmented by technologies: a community in cyberspace', Interpersonal
Communication and Technology Journal, 5 (1/2), 7-18.

Davis, M. and Holt, M. (1998), 'Havingproblems@cm.com: new ways to miss the point',
Innovative Higher Education, 22, 4, 311-27.

Davis, M. and Denning, K. (2000), 'Online learning: frontiers in the creation of learning com-
munities', Proceedings of the Networked Learning 2000 Conference, University of Lancaster.

de Board, R. (1978), The Psychoanalysis of Organisations, London: Tavistock.

Feenberg, A. (1989), 'The written world: on the theory and practice of computer
conferencing', in R. Mason and A. Kaye (eds.), Mindweave: Communication, Computers
and Distance Education, Leicester: Pergamon.

Fernback, J. (1999), 'There is a there there: notes toward a definition of cybercommunity',
in S. Jones (ed.), Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the
Net, London: Sage, 203-20.

Grinberg, L., Sor, D. and Tabak de Bianchedi, E. (1975), Introduction to the Work of Bion
(trans. A. Hahn), London: Maresfield Library.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L. and Turoff, M. (1995), Learning Networks: A Field Guide to
Teaching and Learning Online, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hiltz, S. (1994), The Virtual Classroom: Learning without Limits via Computer Networks,
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Jones, S. (ed.) (1998), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-mediated Communication and
Community, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Jordan, B. (1996), 'Ethnographic workplace studies and CSCW', in D. Shapiro, M. Tauber
and R. Traunmuller (eds.), The Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work and
Groupware Systems, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

McConnell, D., Hardy, V. and Hodgson, V. (1996), Groupwork in Educational Computer
Conferences. Final Report to ESRC, DACE, University of Sheffield, http://www.shef.ac.uk/
uni/projects/csnl/.

McLellan, H. (ed.) (1996), Situated LEARNING Perspectives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.

Miller, N. (1993), 'How the T-group changed my life: a sociological perspective on
experiential group work', in D. Boud, R. Cohen and D. Walker (eds.), Using Experience for
Learning, Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.

74



ALT-J Volume 9 Number 2

Midoro, V. (1999), 'Modelling online education', in Communications and Networking in
Education: Learning in a Networked Society, Proceedings of IFIP Working Groups 3.1, 3.5
and 3.6 Open Conference, Aulanko-Hameenlinna, Finland, 13-18 June 1999, 239-46.

Reber, A. (1995), The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd edition, Harmondsworth:
Penguin.

Rheingold, H. (1991), Virtual Reality, London: Mandarin.

Roschelle, J., and Behrend, S. (1995), 'The construction of shared knowledge in
collaborative problem solving', in C. O'Malley (ed.), Computer-supported Collaborative
Learning, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Stubbs, M. (1983), Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Whipple, W. (1987), 'Collaborative learning: recognizing it when we see it',
Bulletin of the American Association for Higher Education, 40, 2, 3-7.

75