Because of a number of lifestyle and technology evolutions, the ways people interact with each other are changing. The absolute requirement of face-to-face interaction for business and education has dissolved. Major corporations stay in operation 24 hours a day, not in a single time zone, but instead by using Internet technologies to share work with branch offices around the world. Prospective students in the United States can register for classes in South Africa as easy as if it were down the street. Researching the collaboration of decentralized groups is important to separate the productive elements from the fad elements of decentralized collaboration.

My experiences match those of Kirschner (2005), where he comments, "student activities [online] are limited to reading from the screen, filling out boxes, and at best, chatting with peer students about the content" (p. 547). I have completed classes at UCF where professors created the content of the WebCT website once, then were uninvolved in the course until it was time to turn in grades.

A study showed while students in an online collaboration effort were able to regulate their own learning, it did not guarantee a productive collaboration (Kester & Paas, 2005, p. 690). While self-regulated learning provides the possibility for higher learning outcomes, most learners found it difficult to regulate their learning behavior. In fact, a study by De Jong et al. showed learners often do not even activate prior knowledge before carrying out a learning task in the common "read, textbox, chat" example (Kester & Paas, 2005, p. 691). Making online collaboration more active is needed, however, scripts and external representations sometimes actually cause cognitive overload (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003, p. 1), so choosing activities with minimal complexity may help instructional designers. By combining presentation methods, learners can double the capacity of working memory for a task using the modality principle (Sweller, van Merrinboer, & Paas, 1998, p. 281).

Lopez and Nagelhout (1995) developed a model for distance collaboration based on four goals "to open discussion beyond a single classroom, to foster a greater multiplicity of voices to encourage problem solving and audience awareness, to more closely model company-wide communication networks, and to provide a quick and easy means for exchanging documents" (p. 15). The model had two notable flaws during its experimental implementation. Students were reluctant to consider advice from other groups to be legitimate because they thought the reviewers did not have a full understanding of the context for the collaboration (p. 18). Students were also reluctant to comment on the work of students they did not know (p. 18). Lopez and Nagelhout (1995) emphasized providing a clear procedure for document exchange was critical for reducing anxiety about distance collaboration (p. 19).

What has surprised me is how the Lopez and Nagelhout (1995) research, notably the opening of communication between classrooms, has not caught on in Higher Education. Colleges and departments often seem to work in bubbles of reality. The way universities are structured now could make even the most educated people wonder how a College of Medicine fits in with the department for theatrical productions. In real life, television shows consult medical doctors regularly for hit TV shows like ER, Strong Medicine, House, or Scrubs. Sales departments need to consult with lawyers about terms of sales contracts, inventors consult with marketing firms to see if patents are marketable, and instructional designers consult with computer science experts about technology. I know a function of universities is to give students the foundation knowledge they need to apply solutions to real-world situations. It seems only natural, to me, for students to get practice working with other colleges, just as they will have to coordinate between departments in a company.

Bronstein (2003) has a different model used for interdisciplinary collaboration, as outlined in Figure 1. Interdependence, shown in Figure 1, is when members of a group rely on the on the accomplishment of others' goals and tasks. Newly created professional activities should flow from the interdependence of group members, allowing for more achievement than one member of the group acting alone (Bronstein, 2003, p. 300). Flexibility refers to compromise, while collective ownership of goals calls for each group member to take responsibility for their successes and failures (Bronstein, 2003, p. 301). Reflection on process is meant for each group member to self-evaluate their part of the collaboration, openly address conflict, and provide feedback on critical components of the collaboration effort (Bronstein, 2003, p. 302).

[img_assist|fid=164|thumb=0|alt=Bronstein (2003) model for interdisciplinary collaboration] Figure 1: Bronstein (2003) model for interdisciplinary collaboration (p. 299).

Members of distance collaboration groups should be aware of their own "professional communities' norms" and values (Roos & Lombard, 2003, p. 544). It is essential to be able to see if your own culture is getting in the way of the progress of the collaborative group. Roos and Lombard (2003) seconded the suggestion of Lopez and Nagelhout (1995) to have collaborative groups endorsed and supported by a higher authority for improved success.

Roos and Lombard (2003) introduced me to a term I have not seen before, "action research". Alant defined action research as "the process whereby information is obtained by careful observation and description of variables to facilitate problem solving" (Roos & Lombard, 2003, p.547). On the other hand, Romme (2004) interprets action research as a way to help "improve the researched subjects' capacities to solve problems, develop skills, and increase their self-determination" (p. 495), which would mean action research is not so much a process of observation, but rather participation. Kidd and Kral (2005) wrote about participatory action research, however, their research determined participatory action research is nothing more than an attitude of the researcher. A successful result of participatory action research is to have the participants of the study work with the researchers to implement the solution (Kidd & Kral, 2005). The twist Roos and Lombard (2003) put on action research is the increased likelihood of success in a research project when the researched subjects are part of the collaboration effort and therefore also part of the research. Therefore, participatory action research is supportive of the cyclical collaboration processes that include "formulation of goals, action, assessment, and reformulation" (Roos & Lombard, 2003, p. 546).

Mabrito (1995) performed a collaboration study based on email communication. The results of the qualitative report had a simple list of rules for becoming a more effective communicator:

• Create a clear subject line: Clearly identify email as a new topic or a reply to a previous topic (p. 11).
• Effective replies: Briefly summarize the previous email in the first sentence, and then write a reply at the top of the email. Writing the reply at the beneath previous topic text in a reply can become awkward to read (p. 11).
• Moving from the General to the Specific:Put the basic information at the start of the email and write the specifics later in the email. Starting with specific information can give a rushed reader the wrong idea of the content in the email (p. 11).
• The Value of Multiple Messages: Cut long lists of ideas and topics into multiple emails. Reviewing, sorting, and otherwise organizing discussion topics is easier when the original topic does not originate in a long email of multiple topics (p. 11).

Distance collaboration provides learners with the opportunity to regulate their own learning, with potentially better results (Kester & Paas, 2005, p. 691). Collaboration online gives learners the ability to communicate without a face-to-face meeting and archive communications.

At the start of this paper, I had no intention of researching cognitive load theory as it relates to collaboration, it was merely an effect of trying to discover effective collaboration practices. I had already been exposed to cognitive load theory as part of Dr. Condly's Adult Learning course, but now I know the principle researchers behind the content of the Adult Learning course textbooks (Bruning, Schraw, Norby, & Ronning, 1999; Clark, 2003). In the future, applying split-attention effect to future instructional design projects should improve the results of my training (Sweller et al., 1998, p. 277). Appling cognitive load theories to text, pictorial, and audio components of online instructional design alone, is an incomplete package. Because of the limited interaction of distance collaboration and because many learners are not able to self-regulate learning, online collaboration alone is not best. Collaboration should be mixed to allow good self-regulators opportunities to move ahead and give everyone the opportunity to have active outlets of interaction.

References

Bronstein, L. R. (2003, July). A Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Social Work, 48(3), 297-306.

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction: Fourth edition. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Clark, R. (2003). Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training and performance improvement. Washington, D.C.: International Society for Performance Improvement.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.

Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2005). Instructional interventions to enhance collaboration in powerful learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 689-696.

Kidd, S. A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing Participatory Action Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187-195.

Kirschner, P. A. (2005). Learning in innovative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 547-554.

Lopez, E. S., & Nagelhout, E. (1995, June). Building a Model for Distance Collaboration in the Computer-Assisted Business Communication Classroom. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(2), 15-20.

Mabrito, M. (1995, June). The E-Mail Discussion Group: An Opportunity for Discourse Analysis. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(2), 10-11.

Paas, F., Rekl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.

Romme, A. G. L. (2004). Action research, emancipation, and design thinking. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 495-499.

Roos, V, & Lombard, A. (2003, September). Interdisciplinary collaboration: An ongoing community narrative. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(5), 543-552.

Sweller, J, van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.