Developing professional skills and social capital through computer supported collaborative learning in university contextsIntroductionDivergent views on the real and potential effectiveness of CSCLHow effectiveness has been typically measured and limits of previous studiesStudy 1MethodParticipantsDesign and procedureMaterials and teaching proceduresMeasuresData analysisResultsProfessional knowledge, competence, self-efficacy and empowermentFollow-up studyResearch aims and methodology of the follow-up studyResultsDiscussionReferencesInt. J. Human-Computer Studies 65 (2007) 140–152Developing professional skills and social capital through computersupported collaborative learning in university contextsDonata Francescato, Minou Mebane, Rita Porcelli, Carlo Attanasio, Marcella PulinoUniversity of Roma La Sapienza, Rome, ItalyReceived 6 July 2005; received in revised form 18 September 2006; accepted 19 September 2006Communicated by G.A. SundstromAvailable online 31 October 2006AbstractThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and online university courses in developingprofessional skills and social capital. One hundred and sixty-six psychology majors learnt professional skills in seminars taught by thesame teacher online and face-to-face. The different groups of participants achieved similar growth in level of professional knowledge,social self-efficacy, self-efficacy for problem solving and empowerment. Instead, online students were top performers on competence-based tasks. Follow-up evaluation after 9 months showed that social ties, formed initially more in the face-to-face groups, lasted moreamong online students. Our results indicate that Computer Assisted Collaborative Learning could provide educational opportunities tonew groups of learners as well as to more traditional campus-based students.r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Keywords: Collaborative learning; E-learning; Distance education; CSCL; Social interaction; Small groups; Self-efficacy; Social capital; Empowerment1. IntroductionProponents of collaborative approach es to learning haverecently gained more attention for a number of reasons.First, there has been an increa se in the popularity oflearning theories underlying the be nefits of collaborativelearning such as cu ltural–historical theory, constructivismand situated cognition. Vygotsky (1978) maintains thateach internal cognitive change is due to the effect of a socialinteraction. Therefore, interaction between children andadults and between peers is crucial in promoting learning.Constructivism based on Piaget’s theories, emphasizes theimportance of context during the construction of knowl-edge and the role of social interaction in promotinglearning (Doise and Mugny, 1984). Situation-cognitiontheory considers learning as a process of entry in acommunity of practice and links together the specificcontext and the knowledge to be learnt (Brown et al.,1989).Second, work in organizations is increasingly becomingcentered on collaborative activities in groups (Johnsonet al., 2002; Lehtinen et al., 1999; Marshall, 1995).Most educatio nal systems, however, have in the pastencouraged competition more than cooperation, individu-alism more then team work, self-actuali zation morethan community spirit; and therefore often did notprepare students to work well in teams. Moreover, thedistributed expertise point of view underlines that cognitivedemands of modern work make the collaborationand networking of different competencies necessaryfor successful problem-solving (Schrage, 1990). AlsoGros (2001) maintains that collaborative learning wouldseem more in keeping with needs of the ‘‘informationsociety’’, in which cooperative relationships, shared deci-sions, diversity and communication are becoming thedominant values.Moreover several social scientists (Wilkinson, 1996;Bauman, 1998; Putnam, 2000) have documented how ourwestern society has widely increased its financial andintellectual forms of capital, but has also seen a dangerousdecrease in social capital. One can distinguish two mainapproaches in the study of social capital. Putnam (2000)ARTICLE IN PRESSwww.elsevier.com/locate/ijhcs1071-5819/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.002Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 64 9917554; fax: +39 66 8806927.E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Francescato).defines as ‘‘bridging social capital’’ certain characteristicsof a social system such as trust, norms and networksthat improve the collective efficacy of society. Suppor tersof this approach study, for instance, how many associa-tions and organizations are present in a neighbourhood,which can help facilitate collective action and buildtrust among residents. Scientists who study ‘‘bondingsocial capital’’, the capital which a person can accumulatethrough his personal networks, investigate the character-istics of interpersonal networks and how people canhave access to different kinds of mutual aid, and differentforms of social support through them (Coleman,1990; Orford, 1992; Edwards et al., 2001; Francescatoet al., 2004).To enable students to do good team work, to sharedistributed knowledge, and to diminish individualismpromoting social capital, are some of the challenges thattoday are facing educational institutions (Lundin andMagnusson, 2003 ). Looking for new ped agogical methodsto reach these goals, many educators have looked withhope to what has been named the third generation ofdistance learning. Variously called web learning, onlineeducation, or e-learning, this technique offered newopportunities for collaborative learning, compared to firstand second generation distance learning based on the solo-learner mod el.Until the late 1980s, in fact, most experiments incomputer-supported education were based on the sololearner mode, that is they relied on the assumption thatlearners would learn in isolation (Bradley and Oliver,2002). This was especially true for computer-aided instruc-tion (CAI) programs based on the ideas of programmedinstruction, but the emphasis on ind ividualistic models wasalso typical of many learning environments built accordingto constructivist principles. The two foundations of theseearly developments were: a communications infrastructureused to broadcast educational materials via television, orcomputer, or both; and an educational design based on ananalytical