Login or register for free to remove ads.
You are here:

Online Collaborative Learning and Communication Media Article

, University of West Florida, United States ; , , Mississippi State University, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 19, Number 1, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


The purpose of this study is to examine the dynamics of online collaborative learning and communication media regarding team projects. Media richness and social presence theories are well-accepted rational theories that explain media choices and media behaviors, and serve as the theoretical framework. Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used to gather data from the 26 graduate students participating in this study, conducted at a land-grant university in the southeastern United States. Quantitative data analyses revealed significance between pre and post course survey item themes regarding factors affecting successful collaboration and perceptions on online collaboration. Qualitative analyses revealed relationships between collaboration and communication media, factors necessary for successful online collaboration, and communication media selection decisions. The results may serve to guide research and practice in online collaborative learning by using communication media. This research may also guide instructors and instructional designers in developing online collaborative learning activities with communication media.


Havard, B., Du, J. & Xu, J. (2008). Online Collaborative Learning and Communication Media. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 37-50. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 23, 2017 from .



  1. Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (1995). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
  2. Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. (2001). Obstacles faced at various stages of capability regarding distance education in institutions of higher education: Survey results. TechTrends, 46(4), 40-45. Bocialetti, G. (1988). Teams and the management of emotion. Team building: Blueprints for productivity and satisfaction (pp.62-71). VA: NTL Institute.
  3. Bruffee, K. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  4. Carey, K. T., & Dorn, S. M. (1998). Overcoming obstacles through use: A case study. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 76, 67-78.
  5. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial information processing and organization design. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour 6 (pp. 191-233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
  6. Erlich, Z., Erlich-Philip, I., & Gal-Ezer, J. (2005). Skills required for participating in CMC courses: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 44(4), 477-487.
  7. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
  8. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational
  9. Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 3. (2nd ed., pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Harasim, L.
  10. Havard, B., Du, J. X., & Olinzock, A. (2005a). Deep learning: The knowledge, methods, and cognition process in instructor-led online discussion. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(6), 125-135.
  11. Havard, B., Du, J. X., & Olinzock, A. (2005b). Dynamic task-oriented online discussion for student learning: A practical model. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 1(2), 62-73.
  12. Heilbronn, M., & Libby, W. L. (1973). Comparative effects of technological and social immediacy upon performance and perceptions during a two-person game. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada.
  13. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conference and content analysis. In Anthony Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  14. Hishina, M., Okada, R., & Suzuki, K. (2005). Group formation for web-based collaborative learning with personality information. International Journal on E-Learning, 4(3), 351-364. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R.
  15. Knupfer, N., & McLellan, H. (1996). Descriptive research methodologies. In David Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1196-1212). New York: Macmillan.
  16. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Mabrito, M. (2000). Computer conversations and writing apprehension. Business Communication Quarterly, (63)1, 39-49.
  17. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-17.
  18. Miller, M. T., & Lu, M. (2003). Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments: Building successful communities in the virtual campus. Educational Media International, 40(1-2), 163-169
  19. Oliver, R., & Mcloughlin, C. (1996). An investigation of the nature and form of interactions in live interactive television. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Society for Educational Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396738)
  20. Schwarz, R. (1994). The skilled facilitator. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  21. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  22. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc. Stepich, D. A., Ertmer, P. A. (2003). Building community as a critical element of online course design. Educational Technology, 43(5), 33-43.
  23. Thorpe, M. (2002). Rethinking learner support: The challenge of collaborative online learning. Open Learning, 17(2), 105-119.
  24. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
  25. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communications: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186-203. Walther, J. B. Impersonal,
  26. Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342-369.
  27. Wang, M., Sierra, C., & Folger, T. (2003). Building a dynamic online learning community among adult learners. Educational Media International, 40(1-2), 49-61.
  28. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  29. Zhang, K., & Ge, X. (2006). The dynamics of online collaborative learning: Team task, group development, peer relationship, and communication media. In A. D. De Figueiredo & A. A. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual settings: The role of context. 98-116. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

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