Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 353–387 | Cite as

Spaces for interactive engagement or technology for differential academic participation? Google Groups for collaborative learning at a South African University

  • Patient Rambe
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The rhetoric on the potential of Web 2.0 technologies to democratize online engagement of students often overlooks the discomforting, differential participation and asymmetrical engagement that accompanies student adoption of emerging technologies. This paper, therefore, constitutes a critical reality check for student adoption of technology to the extent that it explores the potential of Google Groups (i.e. self-organised online groups) to leverage collaborative engagement and balanced participation of students with minimal educator support. Community of Inquiry and a case study approach involving in-depth interviews with racially mixed students and Google Group artifacts were drawn upon as theoretical and methodological lenses for examining the equality of participation, academic rigor and complexity of engagement in Google Groups. Study findings were mixed: a semblance of authentic peer-based engagements, emergent academic networking, and inter-racial communication in Google Groups was juxtaposed with gender asymmetries in participation, dominance of group administrators’ postings and shallow collaborative engagements. The study, therefore, recommends actively engaged Group leaders who steer gender and racially balanced engagements, scaffold peer on-task behavior; including a sound pedagogical strategy anchored in collaborative problem-solving; authentic construction of knowledge; effective completion of collaborative tasks by students; and constructive assessments by the educator and peers.

Keywords

Google Groups Collaborative engagement Academic participation Collaborative learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

My special thanks are extended to all Master’s in ICT in education at this South African university who participated in this study. Without their cooperation, this study would not have been possible.

References

  1. Abdelraheem, A., & Asan, A. (2006). The effectiveness of inquiry-based technology enhanced collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 65–87. http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/issue0602/Ahmed%20ASan%20Vol2%20Issue2.pdf
  2. Abrantes, S., & Gouveia, L. (2011). Comparing Google Groups use by evaluating flow experience and generated messages in laptop and desktop higher education students. In Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE) 2011 (pp. 1–20). Novi Sad, Serbia: Higher Education Technical School of Professional Studies, 18–23 June 2011. http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2011/InSITE11p001-020Abrantes279.pdf
  3. Alexander, L. (2013). Case study 6: Google Groups to enhance engagement. In C. Brown, & D. Gachago (Eds.), Emerging technologies in higher education: A guide for South African higher education practitioners (pp. 26–27). Cape Town, South Africa. http://www.mrowe.co.za/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Emerging-ICTs-in-SA-higher-education-guide.pdf
  4. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_anderson.asp
  5. Appleton, J., Christenson, S., & Furlong, M. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the schools, 45(Iss 5), 369–386. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20303/abstract
  6. Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T., & Williams, M. (2010). Professional development 2.0: Transforming teacher education pedagogy with 21st century tools. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of priorities and practices in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Beamish, E., McDade, D., & Mulvenna, M. (2012). Better together: The trail user participation toolkit for living labs. Ulster: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
  10. Bécares, L., & Priest, N. (2015). Understanding the influence of race/ethnicity, gender, and class on inequalities in academic and non-academic outcomes among eighth-grade students: Findings from an intersectionality approach. PLoS ONE, 10(10), 1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. In C. H. Steel, M. J., Keppell, P., Gerbic & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 75–86). Sydney: Ascilite, 5–10 December 2010. http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Beer-full.pdf
  12. Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009a). Sharing and collaborating with Google Docs: The influence of psychological ownership, responsibility, and student’s attitudes on outcome quality. In T. Bastiaens et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 3329–3335). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  13. Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009b). What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome quality of collaboration. In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, & Y. Yair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research 2009: Learning in the technological era (pp. 48–55). Raanana: The Open University of Israel.Google Scholar
  14. Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and healthcare education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brack, C., & Van Damme, M-P. (2010). The wiki factor: Scaffolding online learning in groups. In C. Steel, M. Keppell, P. Gerbic & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 41–146). Sydney: Ascilite, 5–10 December 2010. http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/brack-concise.pdf
  16. Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. (2011). Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies: Education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 73–103. http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol10/JITEv10IIPp073-103Brodahl948.pdf
  17. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, C., & Gachago, G. (2013). Emerging technologies in higher education: A guide for South African higher education practitioners. Cape Town, South Africa. http://www.mrowe.co.za/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Emerging-ICTs-in-SA-higher-education-guide.pdf
  19. Burnard, P. (1991). A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today, 11(6), 461–466. doi: 10.1016/0260-6917(91)90009-Y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen, R., Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2008). The adaptation of Chinese international students to online flexible learning: Two case studies. Distance Education, 29(3), 307–323. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&context=edupapers
  21. Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2012). Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and Information Technologies, 17, 1–25. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1#page-1
  22. Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2006). Nonvoluntary class participation in graduate discussion courses: Effects of grading and cold calling. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 354–377. http://jme.sagepub.com/content/30/2/354.full.pdf
  23. Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2010). Class participation in accounting courses: Factors that affect student comfort and learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 25(4), 613–629. doi: 10.2308/iace.2010.25.4.613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feld, S. (1982). Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review, 47, 797–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142. http://rer.sagepub.com/content/59/2/117.abstract
  26. Fogarty, R., & McTighe, J. (1993). Educating teachers for higher order thinking: The three-story intellect theory into practice. Teaching for Higher Order Thinking, 32(3), 161–169.Google Scholar
  27. Fouch`e, C. B., & Schurink, W. (2011). Qualitative research designs. In A. De Vos, H. Strydom, C. Fouch`e, & C. Delport (Eds.), Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human service professions (pp. 307–327). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Garrison, D. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1), 61–72. http://wiki.sln.suny.edu/download/attachments/4032379/v11n1_8garrison.pdf
  29. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751600000166
  31. Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2004). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_CogPres_Final.pdf
  32. Greenwood, C., Carta, J., & Kamps, D. (1990). Teacher versus peer-mediated instruction. In H. Foot, M. Morgan, & R. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 177–206). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Hane, J. (2010). Google Wave and computer supported collaborative learning: Impact on Higher Education. Research Bulletin, 13, 1–11.Google Scholar
  34. Harris, A. (2006). Using Google Groups in the classroom: A case study. Sprouts Working Papers on Information Systems, 6(69), 1–9. http://sprouts.aisnet.org/1161/1/Paper_Google_groups.pdf
  35. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Students’ use of asynchronous voice discussion in a blended-learning environment: A study of two undergraduate classes. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(Iss 4), 360–367.Google Scholar
  36. Ho, S. (2002). Evaluating students’ participation in on-line discussions. Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/ho/paper.html
  37. Hoeane, T. (2004, November 7). Closing the race debate no way to resolve tensions. Sunday Independent.Google Scholar
  38. Horton, J. (2008). Net and nodes: Social network analysis and PR. http://www.online-pr.com/Holding/Social_Network_analysis_article.pdf
  39. Hovey, C. (2014). The affect of environmental web-design on student perceptions of social presence in online learning communities. Masters Thesis, Ohio.Google Scholar
  40. Hu, S., & Kuht, G. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1020114231387#page-1
  41. Ingram, A.L. (2005). Engagement in online learning communities. In J. Bourne & J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 55–67). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. https://www.academia.edu/580754/Engagement_in_online_learning_communities.
  42. Ioannou, A., & Artino, A. (2008). Incorporating Wikis in an educational technology course: Ideas, reflections and lessons learned. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2008 (pp. 3353–3358). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  43. Jackson, K. (2010). What value assessment rubrics in shaping students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussions? In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppel, P. Gerbic., & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 454–458). Sydney: Ascilite, 5–10 December 2010. http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/sydney10/procs/Jackson-concise.pdf
  44. Knapp, N. (2014). Flipping an online course using Google Hangouts. Proceedings of the conference on higher education pedagogy (pp. 191–192). Blacksburg: Virginia Tech.Google Scholar
  45. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krause, K. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  47. Libby, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274–283. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08284.x/pdf
  48. Marín, V., & de Benito, B. (2011). A design of a postgraduate course on Google Apps based on an institutional personal learning environment (iPLE). In Proceedings of the The PLE conference (pp. 1–5). Southampton: University of Southampton. http://gte.uib.es/pape/gte/sites/gte.uib.es.pape.gte/files/workshopiple_definitivo.pdf
  49. Maslo, I., Surikova, S., & Gonzalez, M. (2014). Elearning for widening participation in Higher education. In V. Zuzevičiūtė, E. Butrimė, D. Vitkutė-Adžgauskienė, V. Fomin, & K. Kikis-Papadakis (Eds.), E-learning as a social cultural system: A multidimensional analysis (pp. 21–42). Hershey: Information Science Reference, IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Masters, K., & Oberprieler, G. (2004). Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation. Computers and Education, 42(4), 319–332. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131503000940
  51. McDonald, C., & Loch, B. (2008). Adjusting the community of inquiry approach to a synchronous mathematical context. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings Ascilite Melbourne 2008 (pp. 603–606). Melbourne: Ascilite, 30 November–03 December 2008.Google Scholar
  52. McLaughlin, M., McGrath, D. J., Burian-Fitzgerald, M. A., Lanahan, L., Scotchmer, M., Enyeart, C., et al. (2005). Student content engagement as a construct for the measurement of effective classroom instruction and teacher knowledge. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McPherson, J., Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face to face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mulvenna, M. (2012). Preface before starting. Trial Living Lab. Coleraine: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
  55. Ng, P., Goi, C. & Gribble, S. (2008). Adaptation of Google group for online teaching and learning. In Engaging communities. Proceedings of the 31st HERDSA annual conference (pp. 252–260). Rotorua, New Zealand, 1–4 July 2008.Google Scholar
  56. Parsons, J., & Taylor. L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? University of Alberta, Canada, March 2011. http://education.alberta.ca/media/6459431/student_engagement_literature_review_2011.pdf
  57. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6, 21–40. http://www.anitacrawley.net/Articles/Picciano2002.pdf
  58. Rawlings, C., & McFarland, D. (2011). Influence flows in the academy: Using affiliation networks to assess peer effects among researchers. Social Science Research, 40, 1001–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating coWeb: A scholarship of application. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rimor, R., Rosen, Y., & Naser, K. (2010). Complexity of social interactions in collaborative learning: The case of online database environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6, 355–365. www.ijello.org/Volume6/IJELLOv6p355-365Rimor711.pdf
  61. Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology and Society, 10(4), 257–268.Google Scholar
  62. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13. http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/Files/Courses_Folder/ED%20261%20Papers/Sfard_ER1998.pdf
  63. Shipilov, A., Labianca, G., Kalnysh, V., & Kalnysh, Y. (2014). Network-building behavioral tendencies, range, and promotion speed. Social Networks, 39, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Solís, A. (2008). Teaching for cognitive engagement: Materializing the promise of sheltered instruction. San Antonio: Intercultural Development Research Association.Google Scholar
  65. Srba, J. (2010). An experiment with using google tools for project supervision at tertiary education. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computer systems and technologies and workshop for PhD students in computing—CompSysTech’10 (pp. 430–435). Sofia, Bulgaria, 18–19 June 2010.Google Scholar
  66. Summerlee, A. J. S. (2010). Challenge of engagement inside and outside the classroom: the future for universities. In E. De Corte & J. E. Fenstad (Eds.), From information to knowledge; from knowledge to wisdom (pp. 67–78). London: Portland Press.Google Scholar
  67. Sun, T., Chen, W., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Zhang, M., & Lin, C. (2010). Participation maximization based on social influence in online discussion forums. Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2010-142 (pp. 1–14). October 2010Google Scholar
  68. Taye, B. (2014). Online discussion for block teaching in postgraduate health professionals’ curriculum: The Ethiopian experience. BMC Medical Education, 14, 29, 1–6. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/14/29
  69. Thompson, T., & MacDonald, C. (2005). Community building, emergent design and expecting the unexpected: Creating a quality eLearning experience. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 233–249. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751605000369
  70. Weaver, C., & Albion. P. (2005). Momentum in online discussions: The effect of social presence on motivation for participation. Ascilite 2005: Balance, Fidelity, Mobility: maintaining the momentum? (pp. 703–706). Brisbane, Australia. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/81_Weaver.pdf
  71. Weaver, R. R., & J. Qi. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students’ perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570–600. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3838840?sid=21105130304731&uid=2&uid=3739368&uid=4
  72. Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). http://www.unb.ca/crisp/pdf/0306.pdf
  73. Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic and intellectual engagement. First National Report. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/otherreports/WDYDIST_National_Report_EN.pdf
  74. Yukselturk, E., & Top, E. (2013). Exploring the link among entry characteristics, participation behaviors and course outcomes of online learners: An examination of learner profile using cluster analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 716–728. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01339.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2007). Listening for silence in text‐based, online encounters. Distance Education, 28(1), 5–24. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01587910701305285

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Support Studies, Faculty of Management SciencesCentral University of TechnologyBloemfonteinSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options