【導(dǎo)讀】學(xué)習(xí)模式，六年以后，這一領(lǐng)域的發(fā)展怎么樣呢？有關(guān)計算機支持的協(xié)作學(xué)習(xí)最新研究表明。什么是最先進的國家？本文的目的是探討計算機支持協(xié)作學(xué)習(xí)的基礎(chǔ)和貢獻于理論。在我們心理方面的理解和可利用的技術(shù)之間的平衡在計算機支持的協(xié)作學(xué)習(xí)領(lǐng)域已。經(jīng)很清楚，其中的技術(shù)能夠滿足心理學(xué)、哲學(xué)和教育學(xué)。算機支持的協(xié)作學(xué)習(xí)的短暫歷史表明，有對的“C”字有不同的解釋和建議，例如集體的(Pea,最后，科施曼指出計算機支持協(xié)作和學(xué)習(xí)建議我們應(yīng)當把學(xué)習(xí)和工作更密切合作、互相研究，乍一看，關(guān)于對“C”的單詞首字母縮寫和縮寫詞的含義的推測看起來可能有點意義。簡單的說，在公共談話中，“合作”。領(lǐng)域的研究人員，對術(shù)語'合作'的理解并不一樣。是他們強調(diào)的知識和參與者相互接觸的合作者的想法。合作的有趣的的角度。知道這一切；合作學(xué)習(xí)不僅是很好，而且是有必要生存。那種認為合作是人類活動的基本。年，馮特，1921年）。

　　

【正文】 ve conflict. This shock of our thought ing into contact with others (Piaget, 1928, p. 204) may create a state of disequilibrium within participants, resulting to construction of new conceptual structures and understanding. According to this view, new knowledge is not so much a product of coconstruction or shared understanding but is rather understood as taking place in the individual minds. This new understanding can then be brought back to the level of social interaction, and collaborative activities. Another interpretation of Piaget39。s theory stresses more the idea of coconstruction of knowledge and mutual understanding. The coconstruction of knowledge takes place through one39。s increasing ability to take account of other peoples39。 perspectives. This ability develops through five, distinct, developmental stages。 from an undifferentiated and egocentric social perspective to indepth and societalsymbolic perspective taking (Selman, 1980。 J228。rvel228。 amp。 H228。kkinen, in press). The second wellknown mechanism for promoting learning in context of social interaction is formulated on the basis of Vygotsky39。s ideas. There are two basic interpretations of Vygotsky39。s thought. The first, and the more traditional view, assumes that because of engagement in collaborative activities, individuals can master something they could not do before the collaboration. People gain knowledge and practice some new petencies as a result of internalization in collaborative learning. In other words, collaboration is interpreted as a facilitator of individual cognitive development. The other interpretation of Vygotsky39。s ideas emphasizes the role of mutual engagement and coconstruction of knowledge. According to this perspective, learning is more as a matter of participation in a social process of knowledge construction than an individual endeavor. Knowledge emerges through the work of interactions and is distributed and mediated among those (humans and tools) interacting (Cole and Wertsch, 1996). Influenced by Piaget and Vygotsky, a great variety of research goes under the label of CSCL covering many, even very different instructional and theoretical approaches, that aim to support individual and group learning with technology. In many cases the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky are seen to represent opposite explanations of human development and learning. In the future, a fruitful approach might be to attempt to reconcile these two perspectives (Hickey amp。 McCaslin, in press。 Packer amp。 Goicoechea, 2021). EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON CSCL Whilst the antecedents educational technology paradigms relied strongly on experimental research design, CSCL adopts a variety of methods from the fields of anthropology, munication science, and linguistic research, just to mention a few. Typical methods for analysis are ethnographical methods and discourse analysis with descriptive, observational, and nonexperimental data. Stress is put on the ecological validity of the research. In contrast to its predecessors that studied human cognition with experimental design and in laboratories, CSCL research is conducted also in real world contexts, for instance, at schools. What then should researchers study in the context of CSCL? Some researchers propose that we should study very specific interactions of mutual engagement and intimacy. Dillenbourg (1999) suggested that one should not talk about the effects of collaborative learning in general but more specifically about the effects of particular categories of interactions. One should, for example, analyze a posteriori which interactions did actually take place during collaboration (Dillenbourg, 1999, pp. 1617), for instance, to study the sequences of improvement and refinement of ideas, and focus not so much on individual statements in discourse (Stahl, in press). In other words, one should in collaborative interactions zoom in more intensively on the micro level. If one studies only interactions of mutual engagement one can then ask, what is the relevance of CSCL research at schools, or in workplaces in general. The dilemma is this: if collaboration is understood as a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem (Roschelle amp。 Teasley, 1995, p. 70), it refers to a form of interaction that can be, strictly speaking, maintained only among a small number of people, and perhaps, only in facetoface situations. An approach to collaboration solely in terms of face to face encounters among small groups appears, however, to be very limited approach to CSCL, for it is very mon to speak about collaboration and learning munities in the same context, and related to worked learning environments. As pointed out earlier, collaboration can also considered as a process of participating in practices of a munity. How then, should one speak about and analyze collaboration at the collective (macro) level? One idea would be to think about munities as interaction works, and interactions representing strong and weak links among participants. Links among munity members that frequently meet each other are usually strong, and conversely (see Granovetter, 1973). We may assume that strong links and intensive interaction among munity members also represent intensive and productive collaboration. Thus, as pointed out by Wellman and others (Wellman, Salaff, Dimitrova, Garton, Gulia, amp。 Haythornthwaite, 2021), we could speak about puter supported social works. Or the unit of analysis could be an activity system, as proposed by Engestr246。m (1987). To date, there is no consensus about the unit of analysis, whether it should be individuals, dyads, groups, munities, or as argued by Bereiter (in press), collaboratively produced knowledge objects or conceptual artifacts. All these units of analysis have bee