You are here:

Encouraging Collaborative Learning in Online Courses with Yammer Enterprise Social Network

, The University of Alabama, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Washington, DC ISBN 978-1-939797-29-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


In today’s global economy, the ability to work virtually is paramount, due to organizations being increasingly distributed, with remote members and locations. Communication techniques in these organizations are no longer the same as they were when all members were located in the same building. Traditional managerial communication techniques do not apply to distributed teams, where in-person meetings may occur but are limited. Further, even employees who are geographically co-located need to communicate and plan using virtual means. Since the use of collaborative tools is emerging as a desired skill set, a collection of Web 2.0 software applications including Yammer Enterprise Social Network were employed specifically to encourage collaboration in an online graduate-level project management course. Additionally, Yammer was utilized as a live case study of online collaboration throughout the course.


Hale, M. (2017). Encouraging Collaborative Learning in Online Courses with Yammer Enterprise Social Network. In J. Johnston (Ed.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2017 (pp. 434-439). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 9, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Bures, E., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(23), 82-103.
  2. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended Community of Inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233-250.
  3. Beard, L., & Harper, C. (2002). Student perceptions of online versus on campus instruction. Education, 122, 658663.
  4. Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C., Tamim, R., Surkes, M., & Bethel, E. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
  5. Fontaine, G. (2002). Presence in “Teleland.” Handbook of online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training, 21, 52.
  6. Garrison, D. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning: Social, teaching and cognitive presence. In C. Howard et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd ed., pp. 352-355). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  7. Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
  8. Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley& Sons.
  9. Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
  10. Garrison, D., & Shale, D. (1990). A new framework and perspective. In D.R. Garrison& D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 123-133). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
  11. Goodman, A. (2010, October). Students and faculty uses of social networking to advance learning in a higher education classroom. In J. Sanchez& K. Zhang (Eds.). Proceedings: World Conference on E-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Orlando, FL, USA (998-1007). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  12. Grant, N. (2008). On the Usage of Social Networking Software Technologies in Distance Learning Education. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3755-3759). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  13. Hauptmann, S., & Steger, T. (2013). “A brave new (digital) world”? Effects of In-house Social Media on HRM. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 26-46.
  14. Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V. (2007). Online vs. Blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27−42.
  15. Martinez, M. (2001). Mass customization: Designing for successful learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 2(2).
  16. Moore, M.G. (1993). 2 Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical principles of distance education, 22.
  17. Nipper, S. (1989). Third generation distance learning and computer conferencing. In R. Mason& A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 63-73). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
  18. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Http://
  19. Riemer, K., Scifleet, P., & Reddig, R. (2012). Powercrowd: Enterprise social networking in professional service work: A case study of Yammer at Deloitte Australia.
  20. Rovai, A.P., Ponton, M.K., & Baker, J.D. (2008). Distance learning in higher education: A programmatic approach to planning, design, instruction, evaluation, and accreditation. New York City: Teachers College Press.
  21. Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Building community in schools. Jossey-Bass.
  22. Thurmond, V.A. (2003). Examination of interaction variables as predictors of students' satisfaction and willingness to enroll in future Web-based courses while controlling for student characteristics. Published Dissertation. University of Kansas. Parkland, FL.
  23. Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition for online learning and intelligent CBT. Educational Technology.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact