This document discusses strategies to promote collaborative interactions in an online learning management system. It describes a study of a master's degree program delivered online with some face-to-face sessions. The study examined how students interacted collaboratively on discussion forums and with tutors. Key findings included that students learned to structure discussions into threads over time, tutors guided discussions with pointers rather than enforcing participation, and asynchronous discussions supported reflection. The implications discussed promoting awareness in groups and training students to effectively use collaboration tools.

1. Promoting collaborative
interactions in a learning
management system
Aleksandra Lazareva

2. 1

3. 2

4. 3
Context of the study
• Master’s degree program (online + 2 face-to-face
sessions)
• Learning management system (LMS)
• Group of students (=4) in 2 courses
• Online tutors

5. 4
Motivation
• LMS for collaborative learning activities (i.e., rigid,
controlled by the institution)
• The program has been running for 10 years

6. 5
Objectives
• What are the successful strategies implemented in
the program to support collaborative interactions?
• How do students adopt the technological tools
(e.g., what affordances are being used most of all,
what are the constraints of the environment)?

7. 6
Course setup
• Tutor posts tasks
and deadlines
• Students contribute
asynchronously
• Reports are
submitted on the
LMS
• Weaver

8. 7
• Observations of the learning activities on the forums
• Students, facilitators and tutors gave their informed
consent
• Interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson 1995)
• The paper describes in detail…
Method

9. 8
Students structuring
their discussions
- The thread strategy
develops over time
- Weaver
- Raising group awareness
The role of the tutor
- Discussion pointers are readily
followed
- Draw students’ attention to
critical aspects rather than
remind of the importance of
participation
Use of technologies
- Did not use the built-in
collaborative text editor,
but chose Google docs
- Synchronous chat?
What else affected
student engagement?
Participation grade:“Well. Personally
I don’t like to discuss quantitative
research. However I have to do the
task to get my participation grade”

10. 9
• Importance of the face-to-face session (Powell et al. 2004;
Pinsonneault & Caya 2007)
• Asynchronous – beneficial for reflections (Popov et al.
2014)
• Sociable learning environments (Kreijns et al. 2003);
students tend to be more task-focused when they talk
asynchronously (Serçe et al. 2011)
• Theory of media synchronicity (Dennis et al. 2008)
• Training on the use of the effective use of the tools (Razon
et al. 2012)
• Promoting awareness in the group
Implications

11. 10
• Dennis,A. R., Fuller, R. M., &Valacich, J. S. (2008).Media, tasks, and communication processes.A theory
of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32, 575–600.
• Jordan, B. & Henderson,A. (1995).Interaction analysis: Foundation and practice. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 4, 39-103.
• Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., & Jochems,W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in
computer-supported collaborative learning environments:A review of the research. Computers in
Human Behavior, 19, 335–353.
• Pinsonneault,A. & Caya, O. (2007).Virtual teams:What we know, what we don’t know. In N. Kock
(Ed.), Emerging e-collaboration concepts and applications (pp. 270-289). Hershey, London: Idea Group
Publishing.
• Popov,V., Noroozi, O., Barrett, J. B., Biemans, H. J.A.,Teasley, S. D., Slof, B., & Mulder, M. (2014).
Perceptions and experiences of, and outcomes for, university students in culturally diversified dyads in
a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 186–200.
• Powell,A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004).Virtual teams:A review of current literature and directions for
future research. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 6-36.
• Razon, S.,Turner, J., Johnson,T. E.,Arsal, G., & Tenenbaum,G. (2012). Effects of a collaborative
annotation method on students’ learning and learning-related motivation and affect. Computers in
Human Behavior, 28, 350–359.
• Serçe, F. C., Swigger, K.,Alpaslan, F. N., Brazile, R., Dafoulas, G., & Lopez,V. (2011).Online collaboration:
Collaborative behavior patterns and factors affecting globally distributed team performance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 490–503.
• Photos:Aleksandra Lazareva & Jesse Sipiläinen
References