Review by: Brahm, Taiga (2007-07-30)

This article deals with the social side of learning which the authors see as a rather under-represented area in the field of educational research. The objective of this article is to develop a measurement instrument for the sociability of computer-supported learning environments. The authors start out with a literature review on whether current CSCL environments support meaningful social interaction. They conclude that the majority of research and practice seems to rely on functional CSCL environments which neglect the need for social aspects such as group dynamics. Social needs are seen as a complementary part of the learning experience. Thus, they are needed for a complete learning experience. This research on social in-teraction draws from three theoretical schools:

• the ecological approach to social interaction, including the concept of affordances
• the concept of socialbility of CSCL environments
• social presence theory

Based on these three theories, the main concept of this article "the sociability of CSCL environments" is presented. It "refers to how CSCL environments can differ in their ability to facilitate the emergence of a social space; the human network of social relationships bet-ween group members which is embedded in group structures of norms and values, rule and roles, beliefs and ideals" (p179). Thus, sociability includes a number of different concepts such as group cohesiveness, trust, respect, belonging, satisfaction, and a strong sense of community. The authors argue that such aspects may not be taken for granted in CSCL environments but should rather be supported by introducing technical devices. Such electronic social affordance devices could, for instance, provide information about the whereabouts of group members when they are online. Thus, sociability through group awareness would positively affect social interactions. The same is true for the perception of social presence (the illusion that the other in the electronical communication is a 'real' person) which is seen as a factor both contributing to the cognitive as well as the affective aims of a learning environment. The authors also hypothesize that certain pedagogical techniques contribute to the extent of social interaction which in turn has a positive influence on the creation of social space. Social space – the last variable in their research model – is determined by the CSCL environment, the partipants and the learning activities (pedagogical techniques). In order to measure sociability, a 10-item self-reporting questionnaire (5-point Likert scales) was created which is available in the article. This new questionnaire was tested with data from two courses at the Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL) with 18 student groups. To validate the new scale, the authors used five constructs similar to the sociability concept as reference points:

• Social Space Scale (Kreijns, Kirschner, Jochems, & Van Buuren, 2004)
• Social Presence Indicators (Gunawardena, 1995)
• Social Presence Scale (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997)
• Work-Group Cohesiveness Index (Price & Mueller, 1986)
• Group Atmosphere Scale (Fiedler, 1962, 1967).

These measures are briefly described in the article. The sociability scale was tested using the above mentioned data and the standard statistical analysis (factor loadings, Cronbach's Alpha etc.) are provided. After elimination of some items, the sociability scale showed good results. Compared with the other constructs, it could be shown that the new sociability scale, indeed, provided a measurement for a unique concept. The authors also report a number of weeknesses of the study which will shortly be repeated in this review:

• low number of cases
• the course samples provided different characteristics
• the same cases were used for two different statistical analyses.

Another weakness of the study is the missing usage of the research model developed from the literature. It would have been very interesting to use structural equation modeling to determine whether the proposed model is of relevance. In sum, the article neatly presents a new and validated scale which puts emphasis on the social side of computer-based learning. This seems be a useful measure for future research.