221 J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner & R. L. Martens (eds.), What we know about CSCL, 221—243. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the United States of America. KREIJNS, K. & KIRSCHNER, P. A. DESIGNING SOCIABLE CSCL ENVIRONMENTS Applying Interaction Design Principles The emergence of new information and communication technologies (ICT) has enabled development and implementation of innovative e-learning environments. The new environments support learners according to relatively new pedagogical paradigms of education such as collaborative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Slavin, 1995), constructivism (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1995; Jonassen, 1994; Palincsar, 1998; Von Glaserfeld, 1995) and competence-based learning (Keen, 1992; Short, 1984). In addition, these environments allow for freedom of time and space, meaning that learners can work and learn at any time and at any place (Ellis, Gibbs, & Rein, 1991). E-learning environments for group learning are commonly designated in the educational field as computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments. Groups using CSCL environments and exploiting the ‘anytime-anyplace’ characteristic are designated asynchronous distributed learning groups (DLGs). In order to design and implement successful CSCL environments, a number of variables must be examined that determine their success. In almost all cases, the sole variables under attention of educational researchers are those that deal with the design of educational functionality in CSCL environments. As a result, CSCL environments are designed that are predominantly functional (Section 1), supporting all or a part of the cognitive processes for learning. However, learners only involved in cognitive processes and missing any possibility to escape from that, because the CSCL environment forces them to stick on these cognitive processes, will fail to develop trust, social cohesiveness, and a feeling of belonging to the group (Section 2). In other words, these CSCL environments lack a social functionality. Learners in such groups will ultimately perform poorly. This observation is confirmed by a number of researchers from various disciplines, among whom, for example, Cutler (1996) and Bly, Harrison, and Irwin (1993). Section 3 in this chapter discusses the implications of a focus on the need to design sociable CSCL environments that explicitly embed aspects of social functionality. In discussing sociable CSCL environments, it is important to notice that the DLGs in question in this chapter are characterised by zero-history and by the fact that group members do not know each other at the start of the study. In addition, it is assumed that group members will never meet each other face-to-face during the course. This kind of characterisation matches the typical distance education student