You are here:

The Benefits and Limitations of Online Group Work in a Teacher Education Program Article

, College of Education, William Paterson University, United States ; , Teachers College, Columbia University, United States

AACE Award

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 17, Number 2, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


This study examined the benefits and difficulties that graduate student teachers perceived while participating in online collaborative group activities during their first year of a masters program. Overall, it was discovered that the three most prominent perceived learning outcomes involved 1) the teachers' recognition of the value of a supportive learning community, 2) the teachers' belief that such practices could develop their metacognitive knowledge, and 3) the teachers' new understanding of the constructive use of online communication tools. Difficulties encountered while attempting to achieve these online collaborative tasks were found to involve 1) cognitive conflicts, 2) individual differences, 3) difficulties adapting to a nondifferentiated grading system, 4) time-zone scheduling problems and 5) the unique challenges caused by not being able to communicate face-to-face.


An, H. & Kim, S. (2009). The Benefits and Limitations of Online Group Work in a Teacher Education Program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 2465-2472. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved November 17, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Alexandre, P., Schallert, D., & Hare, V. (1991). Coming to terms: how researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315-343.
  2. Ball, D.L., & McDiarmid, G.W. (1987). Understanding how teachers’ knowledge changes. National Center for Teacher Education Colloquy, 1(1), 9-13.
  3. Brown, A.L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12.
  4. Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399-413.
  5. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242.
  6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). (Eds.), How People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience and School, Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  7. Bush, G. (2003). The School Buddy System: The Practice of Collaboration. ALA Editions: Chicago, 2003. Calderhead, J. & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: student teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1-8.
  8. Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
  9. Chi, M., Bassock, M., Lewis, M., Reimann,P., & Glaser, R.(1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
  10. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. (2003). Successful factors in networked collaboration. In the Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  11. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. London, SAGE Publications.
  12. SITE 2006 Proceedings - Page 2471
  13. Dirkx, J.M. & Smith, R.O. (2004). Thinking out of a bowl of spaghetti: Learning to learning in online collaborative groups. In T.S. Roberts (Ed.), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice (pp. 132-159). Information Science Publishing: Hershey, PA.
  14. Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  15. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding (pp . 21-29). H illside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Florio-Ruane, S. & Lensmire, T. J. (1990) Transforming future teachers’ ideas about writing instruction, 22 (3), 277-289. Gokhale, A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7, 1-2. Retrieved August 20, 2005, from
  16. Hiltz, S.R. & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning effective? Communications of the ACM, 45 (4), 56-59. Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students’ personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science Education, 83, 1-32.
  17. Honebein, P.C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  18. Jacobson, R. (1998). Teachers improving learning using metacognition with self-monitoring learning strategies. Education, 118(4), 579-589.
  19. Jegede, O. J. (2002). Facilitating and sustaining interest through an on-line distance peer-tutoring system in a cooperative learning environment. Virtual University Gazette, 35- 45.
  20. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
  21. Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist view of instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(9), 34-37.
  22. Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  23. Kemery, E.R. (2000). Developing on-line collaboration. In A. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based Learning and Teaching Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges (pp. 227-245). Hershey, PA: IDEA Group Publishing.
  24. Kennedy, M. M. (1991). Teaching Academic Subjects to Diverse Learners. Teachers College, Columbia University Press. Kochan, F. K. (2000). Models for enhancing the professional development for teachers: Overview and framework. In D. J. McIntyre and D. M. Byrd (Eds.), Research on Effective Models for Teacher Education” Teacher Education Yearbook VIII (pp. 1 –9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
  25. Krippendorff, K. (1987). Association, agreement, and equity. Quality a nd Quantity, 21, 109-123. Lin, X. (2001). Designing Metacognitive activities. ETR&D , 49(2), 23-40.
  26. Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to Teach with New Technology: Implications on Professional Development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (2), 272-289.
  27. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
  28. Pramling, I. (1990). Learning to Learn. A Study of Swedish Preschool Children. New York: Springer Verlag. Roth, W.-M. (1998). Designing communities . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  29. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in Quantitative Content Analysis. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52(1), 5-18.
  30. Ruhleder, K., & Michael, T. (2000). Reflective collaborative learning on the web: Drawing on the master class, First Monday, 5(5). Retrieved August 24, 2005, from
  31. Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (2000). A National Plan for Improving Professional Development. Retrieved September 2, 2005, from
  32. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  33. Schulz, B. (2003). Collaborative Learning in an Online Environment: Will it work for teacher training? Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Vol. 2003, Issue. 1, 2003, p p . 503-504. Sternberg, R. J. (1984). What should intelligence tests test? Implications for a triarchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing. Educational Researcher, 13(1), 5-15.
  34. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  35. SITE 2006 Proceedings - Page 2472

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Teacher education meets the 2.0 students

    Kirsti Engelien & Andreas Lund, Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Norway

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (Mar 07, 2011) pp. 1813–1818

  2. A Review of Benefits and Limitations of Online Learning in the Context of the Student, the Instructor and the Tenured Faculty

    Subhashni Appana, College of Foundation Studies, University of the South Pacific, Fiji

    International Journal on E-Learning Vol. 7, No. 1 (January 2008) pp. 5–22

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact