Instrumented Collective Learning Situations (ICLS): the Gap between Theoretical Research and Observed Practices

According to socio-constructivism approach, collective situations are promoted to favor learning in classroom, at a distance or in a blended educational context. So, many Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are provided to teachers but there are no clear studies about the way they are used and perceived. Our research is based on the hypothesis that practices of educational actors (instructional designers and tutors) are far away from theoretical results of research in education technologies. In this paper, we consider a precise kind of situation: Instrumented Collective Learning Situations (ICLS). By a survey on 13 fields in higher education in France, Switzerland and Canada, we present how ICLS are designed and how teachers used them. Conclusions give an indication on the gap between the way information technologies are prescribed and the way they are actually used and perceived by teachers.

💡 Research Summary

The paper investigates the discrepancy between theoretical research on technology‑enhanced collaborative learning and the actual practices of higher‑education teachers in France, Switzerland, and Canada. It focuses on “Instrumented Collective Learning Situations” (ICLS), defined as learning activities that are deliberately designed to be mediated by ICT tools in order to foster socio‑constructivist, collaborative knowledge building.

A survey was administered to instructional designers and tutors across 13 academic fields (humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, etc.). The questionnaire covered the learning objectives of each ICLS (knowledge, skills, attitudes), the types of collaborative activities (discussion, project work, peer review), the ICT tools employed (learning management system (LMS) functions, wikis, collaborative documents, video‑conferencing), the distribution of roles between teachers and learners, and teachers’ perceived competence and satisfaction with the technology.

Results show that most ICLS are designed with basic collaborative goals—joint task completion and feedback exchange—but the actual technology used remains confined to the core features of the institution’s LMS (forums, chat, assignment submission). Advanced collaborative tools such as wikis, real‑time co‑authoring platforms, or dedicated group‑work environments are employed in less than 12 % of cases. Consequently, the rich interaction patterns envisioned by socio‑constructivist theory are rarely realized.

Teachers often view ICLS as a digital extension of traditional lecture‑and‑assignment models rather than as genuine learner‑centered knowledge‑construction environments. This perception leads to a teacher‑controlled, rather than learner‑controlled, orchestration of activities, indicating that the theoretical principles of collaborative learning are not fully integrated into the design phase.

Geographic differences emerge: French and Swiss institutions enforce a centralized LMS, limiting teachers’ autonomy to experiment with external tools, whereas Canadian respondents report occasional use of platforms such as Google Docs or Microsoft Teams. However, even in Canada, the use of these tools is ad‑hoc and not embedded in a coherent instructional design framework, resulting in inconsistent learning outcomes.

The study identifies three primary sources of the theory‑practice gap: (1) insufficient ICT competence among teachers, (2) inadequate technical support and infrastructure, and (3) the lack of institutional policies that translate research‑based design principles into concrete implementation guidelines. Professional development programs tend to focus on tool operation rather than on aligning collaborative pedagogy with technology.

In response, the authors propose a set of interventions: (i) integrated professional development that couples ICT skill‑building with collaborative‑learning design training, (ii) granting teachers greater autonomy to select and combine a variety of collaborative tools, and (iii) developing a design matrix that explicitly links socio‑constructivist principles with specific ICT functionalities. By addressing these issues, the gap between the prescribed use of technology and its actual adoption can be narrowed, allowing ICLS to fulfill their potential as authentic, technology‑mediated collaborative learning environments.