Comprehensive classification of collaboration approaches in E-learning

Accepted Manuscript Comprehensive Classification of Collaboration Approaches in E-learning Amal Al-Abri, Yassine Jamoussi, Naoufel Kraiem, Zuhoor Al-Khanjari PII: DOI: Reference:

S0736-5853(16)30182-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.006 TELE 842

To appear in:

Telematics and Informatics

Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:

26 April 2016 3 July 2016 10 August 2016

Please cite this article as: Al-Abri, A., Jamoussi, Y., Kraiem, N., Al-Khanjari, Z., Comprehensive Classification of Collaboration Approaches in E-learning, Telematics and Informatics (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele. 2016.08.006

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Comprehensive Classification of Collaboration Approaches in E-learning

Amal Al-Abri1, Yassine Jamoussi1,2, Naoufel Kraiem1,2 and Zuhoor Al-Khanjari1 1 Department of Computer Science, College of Science, Sultan Qaboos University, PO Box 36, Al-Khoudh 123, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman 2 RIADI Lab, ENSI, Campus of Manouba, Tunisia [email protected] {yessine, naoufel, zuhoor}@squ.edu.om

1

Comprehensive Classification of Collaboration Approaches in E-learning

Research Highlights:

• • • •

The adaptation of communication and collaboration techniques causes variation in approaches. A mechanism to study collaboration approaches and highlight their eminence is needed. The investigation highlighted the major requirements to consider when proposing a new approach. There is a need for an approach to fulfilling all highlighted requirements.

2

Comprehensive Classification of Collaboration Approaches in E-learning Abstract There are a number of approaches to learning such as traditional approaches (teachercentred) and collaborative approaches (learner-centred). Nowadays, the concepts of collaboration and social interactions are the major trends in education. Therefore, many researchers embrace these concepts to offer the educational field enhanced learning environments which are supported by communication and collaboration techniques. The adaptation causes the existence of varied approaches which are addressing the collaborative learning techniques. As a result, there is a need for a mechanism to study those approaches and highlight their eminence. The aim of this paper is to give a comprehensive overview about the state-of-art in collaborative learning, especially by integrating social media tools. To do so, the study adopts a classification framework based on four different views (subject, purpose, method, and tool). The framework has been used to compare Ten collaborative e-learning approaches. The finding indicates the potential of all approaches in developing an online learning environment for remote collaborative learning despite the lack of fulfilling all the requirements highlighted in the four views. Keywords: collaborative learning, classification framework, social media 1. Introduction Collaborative learning is an approach for teaching and learning packed in different forms of designs. Collaborative learning processes are guided by more than one learning theory. One of these theories is called connectivism. Connectivism is a recent theory derived from couples of learning theories used to govern the design of instructional environments. These theories are behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Connectivism states that "knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks" (Downes, 2007). Based on this theory, learning occurs by acquiring knowledge through connections. Connections formed by actions and experience via networking which requires tools like social media to facilitate information creation, storing, sharing, and retrieval. Social media, as part of web 2.0 tools, opens the door for an enormous degree of interactions between people. Therefore, using such means of communication techniques will significantly help the collaboration process integration in learning scenarios through chats, discussions, and forums (Al-Khanjari et al., 2011). As stated by (Jamoussi et al., 2014), “This phenomenon does not affect only the way how a learner perceives education based on Social Network but also affect how training establishment can achieve their goals related to e-learning”. Nowadays, providing a social and an educational application is the intention of e-learning systems developers (Al-Khanjari et al., 2015). Therefore, many researchers are working hard to implement the collaboration technique in learning environments aiming to provide learners with tools that are designed to support and facilitate group work 3

interactions and sharing of ideas and knowledge (Janssen et al., 2012). To understand the approaches researchers have followed, we need to know the mechanism in which the collaboration was developed and implemented. To do so we need a guidance which considers the collaboration process from different aspects. The outline of the paper is as follow: Section 2 discusses the literature review. Section 3 presents the research approach followed in this study. Section 3 also describes the classifications of the multidimensional framework incorporated to understand the varied aspects guiding the development of collaborative learning environments. In Section 4 the framework has been tested to compare ten different collaboration approaches. A detailed discussion about the finding is presented in Section 5. The paper is concluded in Section 6. 2. Literature Review There are some previous studies which gave an overview of the state-of-art in collaborative learning. Soller (Soller et al., 2005) proposed a collaboration management cycle framework to characterize collaborative learning systems. The framework categorized the systems into three types; mirroring systems, metacognitive tools, and coaching systems. “The reviewed systems are further characterized by the type of interaction data they assimilate, the processes they use for deriving higher-level data representations, the variables or indicators that characterize these representations, and the type of feedback they provide to students and teachers” (Soller et al., 2005). In their study, Scheuer (Scheuer et al., 2010) presented an extensive literature review focusing on argumentation systems as a style of collaborative learning systems. The review considered three aspects related to this type of systems which are; the types of argument representations have been used, the various types of interaction design and ontologies have been employed, and the system architecture issues have been addressed (Scheuer et al., 2010). In 2015 a study by Lytras et al. (2015) carried out to explore the key open issues related to the transformation happening in academia and businesses worldwide in relation to collaborative learning. The study investigated 5 integrative dimensions (Enabling Technologies, Psychological Factors, Learning Dimension, Knowledge Management , Social Networking) of collaborative learning infrastructure and linking them to 7 evolving scenarios for collaboration. The study also provided a list of design guidelines for next generation learning systems in relation to each of the investigated dimensions. Additionally, an emerging philosophical paradigm for next generation collaborative learning has been provided (Lytras et al., 2015). Apart from Lytras et al. (2015) study which considers social networking as one of the investigated dimension; all the above-mentioned studies failed to give a detailed overview of collaborative learning using social media tools. Therefore, a framework has been designed specifically for this study. The framework is aiming to classify the collaboration approaches from four different angles addressing the questions: What?, Why?, How?, and Which?. 3. Research approach 4

The aim of the paper is to propose a multidimensional framework to classify the various approaches which consider collaboration in learning using social media tools. This classification requires analyzing the domain content of collaboration and categorize them into different perspectives/views. The suitable method to carry out the classification from multidimensional view is by using the faceted classification since it is capable of handling multi-view of approaches classification (Denton, 2003). The flexibility feature of the facet (Denton, 2003) enables to update the facet classification by adding new terms, modifying existing ones or even deleting unwanted ones without affecting other facets. This flexibility copes with the nature of collaboration using social media which is rapidly growing. Faceted classification is based on defining attribute classes that can be instantiated with different terms. Facets are considered as perspectives, viewpoints, or dimensions of a particular domain. Each facet is measured by a set of relevant attributes. According to Saidani et al. (2013), “these attributes have values that are defined within a domain, whereby a domain may be a predefined type such as integral or Boolean, an enumerated type ({x, y, z}), or a structured type (Set {x, y})” (Saidani et al., 2013). The set type allows characterizing the attribute using several values whose elements might belong to the enumerated type. Thus, a given collaboration approach might be positioned within a specific facet with two pairs of (attribute; value). The proposed framework is similar to the one proposed by (Saidani et al., 2013; AlKalbani et al., 2015). The classification will be based on four different views, as summarized in the framework in Figure 1. Each view captures a particularly relevant aspect of the approach. Each specific approach will be characterized according to these four views. The four views are What (subject), Why (purpose), How (method), and Which (tool). Each view consists of a number of facets which present a set of attributes, and by default, the attributes are defined by suitable values. Moreover, there is an interconnection between the views.

what?

Subject

Purpose

Collaboration which? in

why?

Tool

E-Learning How?

Method

Figure 1: Classification Framework for Collaboration Approaches in E-learning 5

3.1. Classifications overview of the framework As mentioned before, the classification of collaboration approaches will be based on four concepts or views which are subject, purpose, method, and tool. Each view consists of a number of facets. Each facet represented by terms or attributes. For instance, subject view comprises four facets which are represented by suited attributes to describe the approaches from the subject viewpoint. The following table (Table 1) summarizes the classification overview from the subject view as an example. Table1: Classification Overview from the Subject View Concept

Facet Type Context

Subject View

Actor Adaptability

Facet representation/attributes Type Context Learner Teacher Administrator Expert Adaptability level

Figure 2 at the end of this section gives the detailed overview of the classification for the 15 facets identified for the classification approaches. The full description is given in the following sub-sections. 3.2. Subject view This view discusses the “what” aspect in the framework. Defining what is the approach and what it is all about, as well as what are the components of the approach. These include type, context, actor and adaptability. 3.2.1. Type facet The first facet to discuss under subject view is the type of the system or approach to be developed. Evolving E-learning environment for the purpose of collaboration normally can be classified into three main types: technical, social or pedagogical. However, some approaches could be classified as a technical type, yet at the same time addressing some social or pedagogical issues. These classifications (Holotescu, 2015) are related to open e-learning environments which are supporting collaborative learning. Each of these attributes has values to be evaluated while comparing the different available approaches. The technical type collaborative e-learning environment, according to (Mott, 2010), is normally balancing between the imperative features of institutional networks and the promising characteristics of the cloud. This can be accomplished by providing some characteristics like institutional, administrative management features and privacy (Holotescu, 2015) which facilitates authentication federation and data portability (Mott, 2010). The second type of collaborative learning approaches is the social one. This type is focusing on providing advanced social interactions with external experts. Therefore, it 6

facilitates features such as interactions with external learners and experts; collaborative applications and platforms with external participants. Experts and students are encouraged to build public profiles/portfolios during courses. Moreover, the environments should be time-persistent (Mott & Wiley, 2013) to continue the collaboration after the course, and teachers should continue to validate and improve learning scenarios, knowledge and communication skills. In regards to pedagogical class, the approach is mainly designed towards Open Educational Resources. Learners will be acting as content co-creators along with the teachers (Holotescu, 2015). This type also supports the integration of peer and collaborative/distributed assessment and Learning Analytics features (Holotescu, 2015). In summary, the attributes of type facet under subject view can be classified as: Type: SET (ENUM {Technical, Social, Pedagogical }) 3.2.2. Context facet The second facet in the subject view / scheme is the context of the collaborative-based elearning approaches. In fact, there are two methods to present the authoring tools in elearning environments. The first one refers to content-based learning where the authoring tools are based on a “single learner model”. This model assumes that a learner interacts only with content objects and that the learning activities are content-based activities engaging the learner in the learning process (Karampiperis & Sampson, 2005). This approach is limited in supporting the creation and sequencing of a single learner, contentbased learning activities. Whereas, the scenario-based context presents the context using interactive scenarios to support active learning strategies, such as problem-based or casebased learning. In the process, students must apply their subject knowledge, and critical thinking and problem-solving skills in a safe, real-world context (Kutti et al., 2007). Unlike approaches that consider human behavior and experience through formal analysis and modeling of well-specified tasks, the scenario-based design is a relatively lightweight method for envisioning future use possibilities. A user interaction scenario is a sketch of use. It is intended to vividly capture the essence of an interaction design, much as a twodimensional, paper-and-pencil sketch captures the essence of a physical design (Rosson & Carroll, 2009). There are a number of core characteristics for scenario-based learning, including; Realism, Learner-centric, Involved applied learning strategies and Interactive (Christopher Pappas, 2014). In short, the attributes of context facet under subject view can be classified as: Context: SET (ENUM {Content-based, Scenario-based}) 3.2.3. Actor facet The third attribute in the subject schema is related to the players who are involved in the lifecycle of the system/approach. This attribute is called “actor”, which includes four main parties, specifically: learner, teacher, administrator, and experts. For a collaborative e-learning approach to be successful, it requires active interactions mainly between two actors: the learner and the teacher (who can act as an instructor or a facilitator). As stated by (Ahmad & Al-Khanjari, 2011), “students and teachers are continuously e-connected 7

for exchanging their ideas, information, questions, and answers”. This interaction might take different forms, learners to learners, learners to teachers, or teachers to teachers. In addition to these two major actors, administrators in the form of institution's managers play a major role. In addition, an expert from an outside circle of the educational/course delivering environment can contribute significantly. The expert could be a researcher or even a member from the learner’s social networking. In this study, the actor facet can be defined as: Actor: SET (ENUM { Learner, Teacher, Administrator, Experts}) 3.2.4. Adaptability facet The fourth attribute to discuss under the subject view is the adaptability level of the collaboration process in the implemented approach. Measuring the adaptability level is very important to recognize to what extent the approach is adaptive to the learners' needs and skills. In order to achieve the system compatibility with the heterogeneous population of learners, an adaptable context is a promising approach to be used. A collaborative e-learning environment is called ‘adaptable’ when main actors (learners and/or teachers) can adjust external support to meet the learners’ self- or other-perceived needs (Wang et al., 2011). In the field of collaborative learning, there is a conceptual analysis of the notion of “adaptability”, which deals with the concern of adapting both the presentation and the navigation through the tutoring content. The level of adaptability the facet can be stated as: Adaptability Level: SET{ High, Medium, Low} 3.3. The purpose view The second view in the classification framework of collaboration in e-learning environments is the purpose view. This view discusses the “why” angle of the approach. The why view explains in detail the objectives of developing collaborative e-learning environment. There are different reasons and perspectives behind developing a system to support collaboration and enhance interactions between e-learning actors. These purposes can be discussed based on varied facets which are classified according to the role the collaborative environments aim to play. These facets are going to be discussed in this sub-section. 3.3.1. Collaboration scenarios Designing collaborative e-learning environments which require students to be selfdirected and have authentic experiences (Murphy et al., 2005) can take many forms of collaborative scenarios. Such forms might include project-based learning; teams and collaboration; mentorship and coaching; peer-to-peer feedback; debate and discussion; and last but not least, social interaction. These scenarios are discussed below: •

Project-based learning: Project-based learning (PBL) is a comprehensive approach which aims at designing a collaboration-scenario to engage students in investigating an authentic problem (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). PBL is a 8

constructivist-based instructional approach designed to guarantee more learning engagement (Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006). This form of collaborative learning requires students to work together autonomously over extended periods of time to develop a specific project/product/presentation (Shadiev et al., 2015). As projects are complex tasks, students need to challenge, to question, to design and to investigate (Shadiev et al., 2015). •

Teams and collaboration: This form of collaboration aims to build team-based or group work activities where team members are required to communicate, collaborate, and perform tasks irrespective of time and space (Johnson et al, 2002). The group work /team management may be affected/influenced by a range of variables such as goal orientation; task value; task interest; affective attitude; help to seek; feedback; and student characteristics (Xu et al., 2015).

•

Mentorship & coaching: Mentoring is a process which includes elements of coaching, facilitating and counseling, aiming at sharing knowledge and encouraging individual development (Lord et al., 2008). It is a relationship between an expert and a learner in which the expert guides the novice by behavioral and cognitive modeling, academic and career counseling, emotional and scholarly support, advice, professional networking, and assessment (Murphy et al., 2005). While coaching, according to Lord (Lord et al., 2008) and Murphy (Murphy et al., 2005), is an enabling process aimed at enhancing learning and development with the intention of improving performance in a specific aspect of practice by observing learner performance and providing encouragement, diagnosis, directions, and feedback.

•

Peer-to-peer feedback: Peer to peer (P2P) feedback, as an opposed to team-based collaborations, focuses on one-to-one relationships in communication, sharing knowledge and feedbacks from peers. The peer-to-peer network makes each peer act as both client and server, so each peer can access and be accessed for material maintained on the peer (Yang, 2006) or in another word, an individual could be a consumer as well as a producer of knowledge (Yang & Chen, 2008). There are two types of common communication in peer-to-peer architecture; one is the message exchange, and the other is file transmission. The message exchange is used for finding which peers possess the material the other peer is searching for, and file transmission is used for downloading or uploading material between the two peers (Yang, 2006).

•

Debate and discussions: Small-group collaborative learning, in which students have the opportunity for critical discussion with the tutor and other students, is a key element of effective teaching and learning in Higher Education (Pilkington & Walker, 2003). Designing a medium for interactive debate like DREW (Dialogical Reasoning Educational Web tool) is an example of this type of collaboration. The design of this tool was based on the idea of “arguing to learn” or “argumentative knowledge” concern (Baker et al., 2003). This form of collaboration facilitates the process in which learners argue in teams that have

9

been designed to facilitate representing, constructing, and sharing of arguments with the aim of learning (Noroozi et al., 2013). •

Social interaction: Another form of collaboration scenario used in the collaborative e-learning environments is called Social interactions. An adequate definition of this approach is given by Scheinkman (Scheinkman, 2008). He stated that “Social interactions refer to particular forms of externalities, in which the actions of a reference group affect an individual’s preferences. The reference group depends on the context and is typically an individual’s family, neighbors, friends or peers”. As an example is what Du (Du et al., 2013) did by proposing an interactive and collaborative e-learning platform which connects course network of users with his/her social network and knowledge network. As a result, it’s helpful to users in building their personalized social network and knowledge network during the process of learning.

Collaboration scenario: SET (ENUM { Project-based learning, Teams, and collaboration, Mentorship & coaching, Peer-to-peer feedback, Debate and discussions, Social interaction }) 3.3.2. Collaboration services The second facet under the purpose view is referred to as the collaboration functionalities. The main goal of the collaborative e-learning approach is to provide a learning space that helps teachers to monitor students’ activity on several different tools using database and timeline aspects. The learning space should also provide more support to the students and teachers by acting as an access point to facilitate tool management. It should help students keep track of their contributions, as well as their peers, and provide a way for instructors to keep track of the class activities, as well as quickly monitor, visualize and grade each student’s contributions (Popescu, 2014) based on scores or analysis evaluation. The visualization could be as a graphical or algorithm view. In short, the collaborative e-learning environment should provide services like Monitoring, Learner tracking functionality, Visualization, Grading, and Evaluation. Collaboration services: SET (ENUM { Monitoring, Learner tracking functionality, Visualization, Grading and Evaluation }) 3.3.3. Principle facet The third facet to be discussed under the purpose view is the principle facet. Collaboration is a process which requires interactions. The best tool for interactions nowadays is social media tools. Therefore, the current trend in building e-learning environments which support the collaboration principle are mainly integrated with social media tools. As a result, the collaborative e-learning approach principles should reflect those of social media which are in line with the socio-constructivism theory. Those principles are characterized based on user-centered, participative architecture, openness, interaction, social networks, and collaboration (Popescu, 2014).

10

Table2: Collaborative E-learning Principle Principle User-centered

Participative architecture

Openness Interaction

Social networks

Collaboration

Description The students are responsible to extract, create, and edit the content or knowledge via collaboration and interactions. The focus is on the needs, skills, and interests of the learner (Norman & Spohrer, 1996). The collaborative space should encourage users to add value to the application as they use it (e.g., generating the content). It should support information sharing in ways that are socially useful and contextualized (Potts, 2013). Provide actors with an open, shareable, wide-audience space for collaboration where there are no technology-driven, artificial barriers to openness (Mott, 2010). The collaborative workplace should enable the students to interact and learn effectively. The key aspects of social software involve the sharing of wider participation in the creation of information, encourage more active learning, and support better group interaction (Du et al., 2013). During this process of involvements, users can build and expand their personalized social network (Du et al., 2013). The key principle in developing collaborative e-learning environments is to support communication and collaboration which involves interaction and self-regulation throughout the learning process.

Principle: SET (ENUM { user-centered, participative architecture, openness, interaction, social networks, collaboration }) 3.3.4. Process-based goals facet The final facet under the purpose view is the collaboration for process-based goals. This facet describes the goals from the process followed by a point of view. For example, Duarte (Duarte, 2015) uses the investigation process to describe how the blog project was implemented and the experiences of administrators and students in using the blog, providing insights to educators to foster collaborative learning. On the other hand, Laru (Laru & Järvelä, 2015) used an illustration process to develop a pedagogical framework for seamless learning based on the levels of interactivity and self-regulation of learning. Others like Churcher (Churcher et al., 2014) implement observation process-based goals to explore the possibilities of Web 2.0 in forming more relatable and accessible learning environments from which information can be processed into knowledge structures. In addition to the above-mentioned processes, researchers also used a varied process like Evaluation, Decision making, Comparison, and Discovery. In summary, the processbased goals facet could be defined as: Process-based goals: SET (ENUM { Observation, Investigation , Evaluation, Decision making, Comparison, Discovery, Illustration }) 11

3.4. The method view The method view describes the “How” of the framework. It answers the question of how collaboration in e-learning has been presented. In other words, it elucidates the methods used to illustrate the collaboration process. There are three facets contained in this view (collaboration method, modeling, evaluation) which are discussed below. 3.4.1. Collaboration method The collaboration method facet indicates the interaction and the integration methods used for the intention of achieving the required level of interactions and collaboration to fulfill the purpose of the approach. Selecting the appropriate method to interact may vary from one system to another based on the goal of the developed platform. The chosen interaction technique/s will lead to specifying the tools to be used and the integration method/s to implement in the system. 3.4.1.1.

Interaction methods

Social media tools have a big potential to expanding the social interaction for collaborative learning. According to Kirchner (Kirchner & Razmerita, 2015), the interaction methods for collaborations could be classified into seven techniques which are: collaborative writing; communicating chatting and social interaction; file sharing; brainstorming; sharing links and bookmarks; media sharing; and computer-intensive elearning services. This classification reflects the different communication platforms used in every method which will be discussed in section 2.5.1. 3.4.1.2.

Integration method

The needed software tools such as social media should be made available in the collaborative e-learning systems to be used as a support or as a complement to the learning approach (Al-Khanjari et al., 2014). As per (Popescu, 2015; Holotescu, 2015), the integration methods of collaboration approaches with social software, such as social media tools, could be classified into the following categories: • • •

Category 1: extending general-purpose social media tools (plug-ins) with educational support features; Category 2: building dedicated stand-alone educational social media tools; Category 3: integrating multiple social media tools (Mashups of branded tools) in fully-fledged educational platforms.

As a conclusion, the collaboration methods facet has two attributes of interaction and integration with the values listed below: Interaction: SET (ENUM{ collaborative writing, communicating chatting and social interaction, file sharing, brainstorming, sharing links and bookmarks, media sharing, computer-intensive e-learning services}) Integration: SET (ENUM{Plugins, Stand-alone, Mashups}) 12

3.4.2. Modeling The modeling facet concerns the modeling of the collaboration context in terms of the protocol used and the service modeling techniques. Collaboration requires a collaboration space as an environment to facilitate the collaborative process. The characteristics and nature of this space depend on the form of collaboration. There are two forms of collaboration which take place based on the space in which they take place: collocated that occur in the same place and remote/virtual that occur in different places. There are also two forms of collaboration based on the time aspect which are: synchronous (that occur at the same time) and asynchronous (that occur at different times) (Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh, 2008). Synchronous collaboration demands for interaction means as well as an awareness of participating collaborators and the context of a situation (Klimke & Döllner, 2010). Synchronous tools, like video conferencing, chatting and instant messaging, enable real-time communication and collaboration in a "same time-different place" mode. These tools allow people to connect at a single point in time (Ashley, 2003). On the other hand, asynchronous collaboration processes need to effectively model, describe, and store the information created in a course of a collaboration (Klimke & Döllner, 2010). Asynchronous tools, like discussion boards, blogs, and e-mails, enable communication and collaboration over a period of time through a "different time-different place" mode. These tools allow people to connect together at each person's own convenience and own schedule (Ashley, 2003). Collaboration space: SET (ENUM{ collocated, remote}) Collaboration time: SET (ENUM { Synchronous, asynchronous}) 3.4.3. Process-based goal evaluation •

Descriptive: a mechanism to evaluate the process of collaborative learning by observing how two or more people have learned and how collaboration is viewed as the mechanism which caused learning (Dillenbourg, 1999). It mainly works for the investigation and observation of process-based goals.

•

Experimental: compares an intervention to a control condition in terms of one or more variables. The comparisons would be made in terms of the features identified in micro-analyses of how information technology influences and is appropriated for members’ methods of joint meaning making. Conceptually, the process analysis is undertaken by “exploring and understanding” ways in which design variables influence support for meaning-making. Such analyses are time intensive: we should explore, as research aids, the development of instrumentation for learning environments and automated visualization and querying of interaction logs (Stahl et al., 2006). Evaluation, decision making, Comparison.

•

Iterative: is driven by the interactions among evolving theories, informal observations, and stakeholder engagement. Design-oriented researchers continuously improve the artifacts intended to mediate learning and collaboration. We need to explore the “space” of possible designs, pushing into new areas and identifying promising features that should receive further study under the other 13

methodological traditions. Designers need to conduct microanalyses of collaborative learning with and through technology in order to identify the features of designed artifacts that seem to be correlated with effective learning (Stahl et al., 2006). The process goal evaluation facet can be set as: Process goal evaluation: SET (ENUM { Descriptive, Experiment, Iterative}) 3.5. Tool View The final view in our framework is the tool view. A tool, or a combination of tools, is considered to be the instrument which is necessary to complete the purpose of the task based on the method applied. This view describes the “which” of the comparison framework. The “which” will give the evaluation of the approaches developed for collaboration in e-learning environments in terms of three facets. These facets are communication platforms, learning objects, interaction policies, and process description. 3.5.1. Communication platforms The first attribute under the illustration facet is the platform used for the communication and collaboration purpose. This attribute can have many values because there are many communication channels and platforms available in Web 2.0 to facilitate the interaction and collaboration feature, depending on the collaboration scenario and collaboration method applied in the approach. These platforms are classified by Kirchner (Kirchner & Razmerita, 2015) as follows: •

• • • • • • •

Wikis: used for multi-user collaborative writing (e.g., Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Wikimedia,), GoogleDocs or editing simultaneous notes, lists and ideas using Pads (e.g., TitanPad, SimplePad) Social networking: used for communicating, sharing and social interaction (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Podio) or instant messaging (e.g., WhatsApp) Document sharing: used for file sharing or document sharing (e.g., Dropbox or GoogleDrive) Mindmaps: used for brainstorming and structuring of ideas (e.g., Mindmeister, Freemind) Social bookmarking: used for sharing links and bookmarks (e.g., Delicious, Digg) Content communities: used for media sharing including video streaming or presentations (e.g., Slideshare, YouTube) E-learning services: computer-intensive e-learning services (e.g., Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS), virtual worlds, simulations) Discussion forums: used for discussion, conversations and sharing information (e.g., LMS discussion forum)

Platform: SET (ENUM {Wikis, Social networking, Document sharing, Mindmaps, Social Bookmarking, Content communities, E-learning services, Discussion forums})

14

3.5.2. Learning objects Learning objects (LOs) refer to the digital resources that can be saved in databases systematically and used for instructional purposes. A learning object represents any digital resource that can be reused to support learning. According to this definition, learning objects are digital resources, modular in nature, that are used to support learning. They can vary in size, scope, and level of granularity. Being digital resources, learning objects can include, but are not limited to: simulations; animations; text; websites; tutorials; quizzes; multimedia; video clips; sounds; pictures; illustrations; diagrams; graphs; maps; charts and assessments (Zdravev & Grceva, 2005). 3.5.2.1. Granularity The granularity of the learning object is defined in two attributes which are the aggregation level and complexity of the supported content (Wiley et al., 2000). The aggregation level is all about the size of the elements. It starts with level-1 and increases gradually by the increase in the size of elements in a web page. For example, level-1 resources are defined by a single element (smallest grain size) in a web page, and level-2 resources refer to several numbers of level-1 resources in a web page which can be enlarged to reach a full course of elements (largest grain size). On the other hand, the complexity of the supported contents describes the degree to which elements of domain content are combined within a learning object. This concept suggests that the potential of object reusability reaches its peak with a single (core) concept. Granularity: SET {aggregation level, complexity} 3.5.2.2. Authoring A learning object may be one of any number of items: a map, a web page, an interactive application, an online video or any element that might be contained inside a course. There are two major facets to authoring learning objects. The first is the content of the learning object itself; the second is the metadata describing the learning object (Downes, 2001). The content can be classified into two types of learning objects, the multimedia objects (e.g., text, PDF, images, audio, video) and the real-world objects (e.g., people, organizations, and events) which are representing the learning objects normally with metadata descriptions. On the other hand, the metadata is the shape of the piece itself, which allows it to fit snugly with the other pieces. Authoring: SET{ content (multimedia objects, real-world objects), metadata} 3.5.2.3. Standards Standardization is meant to enable the interoperability and reusing of e-learning contents transparently without any manual intervention when transferring from one platform to another. In this scenario, the e-learning contents are presented as learning objects. Therefore, their units are properly tagged with keywords, or other metadata, and often stored in an XML file format. As creating a full course requires putting together a sequence of learning objects, using e-learning standards supports the process of categorizing, sharing and reusing of these objects. The main commonly used standards 15

and specifications for this purpose are: Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM); Instructional Management Systems-Learning Design (IMS-LD); IEEE Learning Object Metadata (IEEE LOM); and Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). Standards: SET {SCORM, ISM-LD, IEEE LOM, SOA} 3.5.2.4. Language What is crucial for achieving reusing and interoperability is the selection of a language for producing LOs. When considering the development language or technology for creating LOs, it is worthy to mention that learning objects can be anything from web pages to mini-applications. They can be created with anything from a simple text editor (for HTML-based objects) to specialized programming software. The selection should be based on different criteria such as the developer’s technical expertise; features supported by the technology; technical support provided; and expense or availability of the chosen technology and the equipment required to run it (Smith, 2004). However, XML (the eXtensible Markup Language) is an ideal option since it is endorsed as the standard for all future applications, and it is the common language adopted by IMS and SCORM. Moreover, separation of structure, content and presentation, which is the fundamental logic of XML, will allow the flexibility required for deploying and manipulating LOs (Polsani, 2006). Language : SET {language()} 3.5.3. Interaction policies Ad-hoc: this refers to the informal way of interactions. This method enables the learners or group members to build a relationship without restrictions from the institute or teachers. This method gives the learners the freedom to select the preferable communication channel, like the personal network, which helps to enhance the personal learning environments. • Protocol: this form of interaction is built based on an institution or facilitator's policies. The communication is restricted by some rules and conditions to be a more formal way of interaction. • Mix: this technique is a kind of mixture of both Ad-hoc and Protocol interactions. This method helps the learners to follow the institution policies for communication and, at the same time, to use his/her personal network channels for seeking more information. Interaction policies: SET{ Ad-hoc, Protocol, Mix} •

3.5.4. Process description Process description indicates whether the flow and the descriptions of the process are available or not. Process description: SET{ Available, Not-Available} The following figure (Figure2) will give a brief summary of all the framework views with the facets in each one including the attributes and values for each attribute. The information in this figure has been used later in the next section to compare ten collaborating approaches in e-learning.

16

Type Facet Context Facet

Type: SET (ENUM { Technical, Social, pedagogical }) Context: SET (ENUM {Content-based, Scenario-based}) - Learner: SET ( ENUM {Students , Employee})

Subject View Actor Facet

-Teacher: SET ( ENUM {Instructor , Facilitator}) - Administrator: SET ( ENUM {Institute , Developers}) - Experts: SET ( ENUM {Researchers , Outsiders})

Adaptability Facet

Adaptability level: SET:{High, Medium, Low} - Project-based: SET(ENUM{ Product , Presentation}) - Teams & collaboration: BOOLEAN

Scenario Facet

- Mentorship & coaching: BOOLEAN - Peer-to-peer feedback: BOOLEAN - Debate and discussions: BOOLEAN - Social interaction: BOOLEAN - Monitoring: BOOLEAN

Services Facet

Purpose View

- Learner tracking: BOOLEAN - Visualization: SET(ENUM{ Graphict , Algorithm})

Classification Framework

- Grading & Evaluation: SET(ENUM{ Scores, Analysis})

Principle Facet

Principle: SET (ENUM { user-centered, participative architecture, openness, interaction, social networks, collaboration })

Process-based Goals Facet

Process-based goals: SET (ENUM { Observation, Investigation , Evaluation, Decision making, Comparison, Discovery, Illustration })

Collaboration Methods Facet

- Interaction: SET (ENUM{ Collaborative writing, Communicating chatting and social interaction , file sharing, brainstorming, sharing links and bookmarks, media sharing, computer-intensive e-learning services}) - Integration: set (ENUM{Plugins, Stand-alone, Mashups})

Method View

Modeling Facet

- Collaboration space: SET (ENUM{ collocated, remote}) - Collaboration time: SET (ENUM { Synchronous, asynchronous})

Process Goal Evaluation Facet

Process goal evaluation: SET (ENUM { Descriptive, Experiment, Iterative})

Platforms Facet

- Platform: SET (ENUM{Wikis, Social networking, Document sharing, Mindmaps, Social Bookmarking, Content communities, E-learning services, Discussion forums}) Granularity: set{aggregation level, complexity }

(LOs) Facet

Tool View

Authoring: { content (multimedia objects, real world objects), metadata} Standards: set{SCORM, ISM-LD, IEEE LOM, SOA} Language:{language()}

Interaction Policies Facet Process Description Facet

-Interaction policies: set{ Ad-hoc, Protocol, Mix}

Process description: set{ Available, Not-Available}

Figure2: Detailed Classifications Framework 17

4. Comparison of ten collaborative e-learning approaches In order to implement the proposed framework as a tool to compare the characteristics of the existing approaches used for collaborative e-learning, ten collaborative e-learning approaches have been selected for this study. Since the study focusing on the use of social media for collaboration, the selected approaches started from the year 2009 when the students' use of social media has reached its peak as reported in (Smith & Caruso, 2010) up to recently. The following table (Table 3) gives a summary of the ten approaches implementing collaboration techniques. Table 3: An Overview of Ten Collaborative E-learning Approaches Ref MUPPLE

Approaches classification Mash-Up Personal Learning Environment (MUPPLE) is a web-based tool landscape focusing on networked collaboration. (Mödritscher & Wild, 2009).

SWiCLE

Semantic Wiki: From Design Models to Application Scenarios (Li et al., 2011)

Graasp

Graasp is a multi-purpose collaborative platform (Bogdanov et al., 2012).

eMUSE

Integrated social learning environment. (Empowering MashUps for Social E-learning) (Popescu, 2014). Extending MediaWiki platform with Educational Features (Popescu et al., 2014) Social Networking Forum (SNFs) for Collaborative Design (Won et al., 2015)

CoLearn

STEM Club

Multidimensional

Student-engaged, technologychoice and impact framework (multi-dimensional teaching method) (Jang, 2015).

CMB

A collaborative work using

Description MUPPLE is an infrastructure called Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments which consisting of several tools to be used within one activity. It focuses on a typical activity in the field of higher education: collaborative paper writing. In this concrete scenario, a knowledge worker wants to collaborate with experts from other organizational contexts in writing a paper. Semantic Wiki-based Collaborative e-Learning Environments (SWiCLE) is a combination approach of Wiki and Semantic Web technology. The aim is to design and develop flexible e-learning environments for different application scenarios aiming to facilitate collaborative knowledge construction and maximize resource sharing and utilization in the sphere of e-learning 2.0. Graasp is a multi-purpose collaborative platform that has been developed to investigate the potential of social media in higher education for learning and knowledge management purposes. The main objective of Graasp is to support people in organizing their contextual spaces for teamwork and studying. Through spaces, it fosters sharing and collaborative work among students. eMUSE aims to advocate the use of an integrated social learning environment, which aggregates several Web 2.0 tools (Wiki, blog, microblogging tools, social bookmarking tools, media sharing tools). CoLearn, as it is called, is aimed at increasing the collaboration level between students, investigating also the collaborative versus cooperative learner actions. In this study, Edmodo (SNF), was integrated into the existing [STEM Club] routine to provide youth with opportunities to interact with learning materials, with one another, and with facilitators in an extension and expansion of the informal learning environment. Influenced by the educational principles of constructivism, the multi-dimensional teaching method is designed to explain how millennial students in higher education choose and use social media and collaboration technologies in their team-based collaborative learning activities, and reveals a relationship between the students’ technology choice and learning experience and performance. Online education environments for collaborative work in the

18

MC2020

Cirip

virtualization technologies, cloud computing, MOOCs and BYOD (Luna & Sequera, 2015). Intercultural, multidisciplinary, blended learning approach, (Vickers et al., 2015)

cloud, using Google Apps services and MOOCs, in conducting laboratory reports for the subjects of chemistry.

A Microblogging Platform for Formal and Informal Learning (Holotescu, 2015).

Cirip is an educational open-learning platform based on microblogging technology used for both formal and informal learning.

The Media Culture 2020 Project aims to demonstrate what 21st century converged and interactive European Media Culture could be in comparison to the broadcasting-based one-way 20th-century model.

Table 4 provides a comprehensive summary of the framework implemented using ten approaches. As the table shows, each approach is classified in association with the four views and the attributes of their correspond facets. Each approach can be associated with one or more attributes of each facet. For example, MUPPLE approach composed of three attributes linked to the type facet based on the subject view.

T,P

So,P

P

Cb

Sb

Sb

Cb

Sb

Cb

S I N

S F N

S I N

S F N

S N N

S I N

R

N

N

N

N

M

M

L

M

M

Pj(o), SI

Pj(o) T&C, PPf

Pj(o), M&C, SI

Pj(e) T&C

T& C, D& D

MN Vis(G ) G&E( Sc)

MN G&E(S c)

UC, PA,

UC, SNs,

N

Cb, Sb S I N

Experts (R,Ot)

R

R

Adaptability

H, M, L

H

H

R, Ot H

Scenario

Pj (o,e), T&C, M&C, PPf, D&D, SI

T&C

Pj(o) T&C , D& D

Pj(o) T&C , M& C, SI

LT, Vis( G,A) G& E(Sc ,An)

Vis( G,A)

UC, PA,

UC, PA,

(In,D)

Services

MN, LT, Vis (G,A), G&E (Sc,An)

MN LT, Vis( G)

Principle

UC, PA, Op, Int, SNs, Col

UC, PA,

MN LT, Vis( G) G&E (Sc,A n) UC, PA,

LT G&E( An)

UC, PA,

Cirip (2015)

Subject View Purpose View

Comparison Framework

T, So, P

MC2020 (2015)

N N

Actor

Learner (S,E) Teacher (I,F) Administrator

T,So

CMB (2015)

Cb

Multidimension al (2015)

Cb, Sb

STEM Club (2015)

Context

T,P

CoLearn (2014)

T, So, P

eMUSE (2014)

T, So, P

Graasp (2012)

Type

Classifications

SWiCLE (2011)

MUPPLE (2009)

Table 4: Classification of Ten Collaboration Approaches

T, So, P

So,P

T, So, P

Sb

Sb

S I N

S I, F N

R

R,Ot

H Pj(o) T&C, M&C

MN G& E( An)

M Pj(o, e), M& C, D& D MN G& E(A n)

UC Op,

UC, PA,

UC, PA,

19

MN Vis(G ) G&E( Sc,An )

Op, Int, Col

Int, SNs, Col

Inv, Ill

Inv, Ev

Inv

Inv, DM

Col

Col

Ob

Ob Inv

Int, Col

Ob, Inv, Ev, DM, Co, Di, Ill

Collaboration methods

Method View

Int, SNs, Col

Process goals

Interaction (CW, Co, FS, BR, BK, MS, EL)

CW, FS, BK

CW, FS

Co, BK, MS

CWC o, BK, MS

CW BR

CW Co, FS,

CW, Co, FS,

Integration(PI, SA, MA)

MA

SA

MA

MA

PI

PI

Space(Col, RE)

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

Time(Sy,Asy)

Asy

Asy

Sy, Asy

Asy

Des, Ex, It

Des

Des, Ex

Des

Ex, It

Wi,SN,DS,Mi, BM,CC,EL-S, DF

Wi, DS, BM

Wi

BM, CC

A Cn, Md (RD F,A PI)

N

(Cn,

N Cn, Md (API ,RSS )

Standards(SC,LD, LOM,SOA,OS)

SOA

SOA

OS

Collaborat ion modeling Process evaluation Platforms

Granularity (A,C)

Tool View

Col

LOs

Authoring Md())

Language

Language()

LISL

Interaction policies

Ah, Pro, Mix

Ah

Process description

AV, NA

AV

Table Abbreviations: Subject View • T: Technical • S: Social • P: Pedagogical • Cb: Contentbased • Sb: Scenariobased • S:Student • E:Employee • I: Instructor • F: Facilitator • In: Institute • D: Developer • R: Researcher

Cn( Wid gets)

Wi,S N, BMC C A

Ob, Ev, Co

Di,

Op, Int, Col

Op, Int, SNs, Col

Di, Ill

Ob

FS, EL

CW, Co, FS,

CWC o, FS, EL

MA

PI

PI

RE

RE

RE

RE

Asy

Sy, Asy

Asy

Asy

Sy, Asy

Des

DesEx

Ex

Ex

Sy, Asy Des, Ex Wi, SN, DS,

N N

N Cn

N Cn, Md (API RSS)

PI, MA RE

Ex, It

Wi

SN

N N

N N

Wi, SN,D S, DF N N

N

N

N

N

N

N

SC, LOM

N

N

N

N

jQuery

XML PHP MySQ L

Ah

Mi x

Mix

Mix

AV

AV

N

N

Cn, Md (API, RSS)

N

XML

Java XML

Mix

Mix

Mix

Mix

Mix

NA

NA

AV

AV

NA

Purpose View • Pj: Project-based (o: Product, e: presentation) • T&C: Teams & collaboration • M&C: Mentorship & coaching • PPf: Peer-to-peer feedback • D&D: Debate and discussions • SI: Social interaction • MN: Monitoring • LT: Learner tracking • Vis: Visualization (G: Graphics, A: Algorithm)

Int, Col

Method View • Ob: Observation • Inv: Investigation • Ev: Evaluation • DM: Decisionmaking • Co: Comparison • Di: Discovery • Ill: Illustration • CW: Collaborative writing • Co: Communicate • FS: file sharing • BR: Brainstorming • BK: Bookmarks

DS, ELS

SN,D S, EL-S

Tool View • Wi: Wikis • SN: Social Networks • DS: Document • • • • • •

sharing Mi: Mindmaps BM: Bookmarking CC: Content communities EL-S: E-learning services DF: Discussion forums A: Aggregation level

20

• • • • •

Ot: Outsider H: High M: Medium L: Low N: Not Applicable

•

• • • • • •

G&E: Grading & Evaluation (Sc: Scores, An: Analysis) UC: user-centered PA: participative architecture Op: Openness Int: Interaction SNs: social networks Col: collaboration

• • • • • • • • • • • •

MS: media sharing EL: e-learning PI: Plugins SA: Stand-alone MA: Mashups Col: Collocated RE: Remote Sy: Synchronous Asy: Asynchronous Des: Descriptive Ex: Experiment It: Iterative

• • • • • • • • • • •

C: Complexity Cn: Content Md: Metadata SC: SCORM LD: ISM-LD LOM: IEEE LOM OS: OpenSocial Ah: Ad-hoc Pro: Protocol AV: Available NA: Not-Available

5. Discussion The awareness of the importance of building a collaborative learning environment already exists in the educational field. Therefore, many researchers embrace this idea to offer the educational institutes enhanced learning environments which are supported by communication and collaboration techniques. While designing those environments the focus has been mainly in supporting the informal learning structure without ignoring the formal learning structure by introducing what is called "semi-formal" learning as Popescu in (Popescu, 2014) refers to it. Formal learning is described as learning that is institutionally sponsored or highly structured with materials developed by a teacher within a program of instruction in an educational environment for a certificate or a credit, whereas informal learning is described as unstructured learning that happens often through observation, conversing with others, or using the Internet. (Jang, 2015). As illustrated in Table 3, the ten approaches help to identify the state of the art in the usage of the collaboration technique in e-learning, especially using the social media tools. The summary can be noted as follows which also demonstrates the intersections of the connections between the different views as the framework structure indicates: •

The subject view o As Table 3 shows, all the approaches considered at least two collaboration types with a major focus on pedagogical-based learning with an acceptable level of adaptability and self-regulation practices. However, for some approaches, a combination of the three types have been addressed, as in the case of MUPPLE, eMUSE, CMB, and Cirip. o Since the proposed approaches are for collaboration, they performed a good utilization of scenario-based contexts, especially for project-based, problemsolving, teamwork and collaboration. 80% of the selected approaches in this study addressed the project-based scenario, except for MUPPLE and CMB where they focused on teams and collaboration scenario. For MUPPLE and CMB, the main targets were to provide a teamwork and collaboration space with the availability of content-based context as a reference for the users. o The developed environment in all the approaches is for collaborative learning and to improve the interaction between the learners themselves, and the teachers. Therefore, the focus in all the activities is on two actors (learner and teacher), with the teacher playing the role of instructor, not a facilitator. 21

•

•

Although, if the teacher is playing the role of facilitator, this will enrich the contribution of the students and help toward the learner-centered approach, as in the case of eMUSE, STEM Club, and Cirip. Besides, some approaches targeted researchers like MUPPLE, SWiCLE, Graasp, MC2020 and Cirip. However, there was little involvement of administrators and third party experts, like learner’s social network and others. Although, for collaboration purposes, social interaction with experts outside the institutional atmosphere, combined with the learner’s social network, will enrich the learning process. The Purpose View o As mentioned in the Subject View section above, the main consideration in the approaches was to develop a pedagogical-based nature for project-based and team collaboration. It was very important to monitor the learners’ working progress and provide them with a visual graphic of their performance. Additionally, the teachers should be able to analyze the evaluation, and apply a grading mechanism. Therefore, the services and principles implemented in the approaches are quite good and in line with the new trend of learner-centered learning methods with 80% (8 approaches) focused on it. Collaboration principle, by default, gained 100% dedication along with 70% concentration in participative architecture. Though, openness only obtained by 40% with an excellent utilization in CMB and Cirip, through the use of MOOCs in their approaches. o Besides, the evaluation of the process goal was mainly for the purposes of investigation and evaluation using experiment and descriptive techniques. Although, as Stahl stated, "When a new technical intervention is tested (iterative), experimental methods can be used to document significant differences (experiment), while (descriptive) methods can document how the interventions mediated collaborative interactions differently." (Stahl, G., et al. 2006). Therefore, an incorporation of the three methods can clearly enrich the results of the study. The Method and Tools Views o Wiki for (collaborative writing), Social networking sites for (communication, sharing , social interaction) and document sharing for (file sharing) are in the top hierarchy to be used as platforms for interaction in the selected approaches, while brainstorming received only 1% consideration. The integrations were as plugins like CoLearn, STEM Club, CMB, and Cirip, or mashups method as in MUPPLE, eMUSE, Multi-dimensional, and Cirip. Whereas, SWiCLE and Graasp integrated the stand-alone method. Besides, there is a promising trend in the latest approaches in using MOOCs for openness and collaboration purposes like CMB (2015) and Cirip (2015). However, they are used in an adhoc manner with no aggregation of the tools, as in CMB or integrating MOOCs into blended courses as in Cirip. o The approaches offered excellent opportunities and models of working remotely (with 100% consideration) for non-real-time (asynchronous) collaborations (also with 100% consideration). However, there are still issues with real-time (synchronous) logistics for arranging different groups of people to present simultaneously. Although four approaches (Graasp, STEM Club, MC2020, 22

Cirip) had the initiative to implement real-time collaboration using video streaming technique, they faced some barriers both technical and non-technical. As for the technical side, live streaming functionality did not work properly due to the essential supporting visual content of some presentations, viewing them after compression and decompression for network transmission failed to communicate some of the ideas presented for discussion in the MC2020 Project approach. On the non-technical side, the barrier was due to the fact that it is very difficult to assemble groups from multiple locations, time zones, and schedules to be together and online at the same time, as is the case in Graasp and MC 2020. Since applying a synchronous collaboration notion requires a well-designed plan and availability of the different parties involved in the collaboration scheme, the emphasis in the approaches was on asynchronous modeling. o It was noticeable that there is a lack of emphasis in designing learning objects (LOs) in the selected approaches. Only 50% of the approaches (MUPPLE, SWiCLE, Graasp, eMUSE, Cirip) gave details about the LOs authority attributes and standards. These approaches depend on different types of contents such as text, images, video and widgets. Also, in the case of Graasp, it is necessary to adopt open social specification. The metadata description and access data made by API and RSS feed or RDF have been used in SWiCLE. SOA has been used in MUPPLE, SWiCLE, Graasp. SCORM and LOM have been implemented by Cirip. Regarding the languages used for implementation, XML has the highest usage percentage adopted by Graasp, eMUSE and Cirip, along with Java and PHP and MYSQL. However, MUPPLE implemented an owned generated language called Learner Interaction Scripting Language (LISL) which is a design language model for creating, managing, maintaining, and learning about learning environment design. Though, for the remaining approaches, the C framework failed to give crucial information about LOs and the technical tools used, such as language and standards. o The interaction policies used in most of the approaches were mixed approaches sometimes as an ad-hoc basis and sometimes as per a certain protocol, as is the case in seven of the approaches shown the Table 3. Moreover, the availability of the process description could be only identified in five approaches, as shown in Table 3. In summary, the study finding totally in line with Vickers statements “Despite how well the tools were used they still did not fully resolve the real world issues of remote collaborative working, they certainly made sharing and contributing to planning documentation easier. They were also successful at providing a platform to promote the project formally to interested parties” (Vickers et al., 2015) 6. Conclusion By adopting the collaboration in e-learning comparison framework which is based on four different views (subject, purpose, method, and tool), a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art in collaborative learning has been demonstrated. From the study, we can conclude that there is a massive trend in adopting collaboration techniques in 23

teaching-learning environments especially with the emergence of social media tools. As indicated in the ten platforms selected in this study and many other scholars (Jang, Y. 2015), social media characteristics offer a potential strategy for improving students’ interaction, engagement, and collaboration. Therefore, a wide range of approaches has been introduced and evaluated in this area. The implementation of the different approaches varied in terms of the subjects they have been built for, the purpose required to achieve, and the methods and tools used to fulfill the requirements and goals. Despite the differences in those views, all approaches are aiming at a single focused target which is building an online learning environment for remote collaborative learning. For collaborative learning to be more beneficial, the purpose of instruction should be highly focused on enhancing critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. In light of the lack of crucial knowledge in some attributes of the views, it can be argued that the present investigation highlighted only the major requirements to be considered when proposing a new approach for collaborative learning. Therefore, there is a need for an approach to fulfilling all these requirements by utilizing the four views proposed in this study. References Ahmad, N., & Al-Khanjari, Z. (2011). Effect of Moodle on learning: An Oman perception. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), 1(4), 746-752. Al-Kalbani, J., Kraiem, N., Al-Khanjari, Z., & Jamoussi, Y. (2015). Towards a Comprehensive View of Web Services QoS Models. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 10(10), 259-272. Al-Khanjari, Z. A., Kutti, N. S., & Dorvlo, A. S. S. (2011). Promoting online learning through learners' vision. ACM inroads, 2(3), 34-37. Al-Khanjari, Z., Al-Kindi, Z., Al-Kindi, E., & Kraiem, N. (2015). Developing Educational Mobile Application Architecture using SOA. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 10(9), 247-254. Al-Khanjari, Z., Al-Roshdi, Y., & Kraiem, N. (2014). Virt-Res: Developing Extended Architectural Design for Computer Science Virtual Resources Using SOA. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 8(9), 125-136. Ashley, J. (2003). Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication Tools. Executive Update. Baker, M. J., Quignard, M., Lund, K., & Séjourné, A. (2003). Computer-supported Collaborative Learning in the Space of Debate. In Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments (pp. 11-20). Springer Netherlands. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating Project-based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398. Bogdanov, E., Limpens, F., Li, N., El Helou, S., Salzmann, C., & Gillet, D. (2012, April). A Social Media Platform in Higher Education. In Global Engineering Education Conference (educon), 2012 IEEE (pp. 1-8). IEEE. Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2008). Collaborative Networks: Reference Modeling: Reference Modeling. Springer Science & Business Media. Churcher, K. M., Downs, E., & Tewksbury, D. (2014). “Friending” Vygotsky: A Social Constructivist Pedagogy of Knowledge Building Through Classroom Social Media Use. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 33.

24

Christopher Pappas, Friday 14 February 2014. Scenario-Based e-Learning to Improve Learners' Engagement. Available in http://elearningindustry.com/the-basics-of-scenario-based-elearning. Accessed on Friday 8.1.16. Denton, W. (2003). How to make a faceted classification and put it on the web. See http://www. miskatonic. org/library/facet-web-howto. html. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1-19. Downes, S. (2001). Learning Objects: Resources for Distance Education Worldwide. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2 (1). Downes, S. (2007). What connectivism is. Retrieved 21 June, 2016 from http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html Du, Z., Fu, X., Zhao, C., Liu, Q., & Liu, T. (2013, January). Interactive and Collaborative eLearning Platform with Integrated Social Software and Learning Management Systems. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Information Technology and Software Engineering (pp. 11-18). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Duarte, P. (2015). The use of a group blog to actively support learning activities. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1469787415574051. Holotescu, C. (2015). Emerging Technologies in Education. Conceiving and Building a Microblogging Platform for Formal and Informal Learning (Doctoral dissertation, PhD Thesis, UPT Romania). Jamoussi, Y., Al-Khanjari, Z. A., & Kraiem, N. (2014). A Framework to Evaluate E-learning Based on Social Networking. International Journal of Current Research and Academic Review (IJCRAR), 2(4), 26-42. Jang, Y. (2015). Convenience matters: A qualitative study on the impact of use of social media and collaboration technologies on learning experience and performance in higher education. Education for Information, 31(1, 2), 73-98. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2012). Task-related and Social Regulation During Online Collaborative Learning. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 2543. Johnson, S. D., Suriya, C., Yoon, S. W., Berrett, J. V., & La Fleur, J. (2002). Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams.Computers & Education, 39(4), 379-393. Karampiperis, P., & Sampson, D. (2005, May). Designing Learning Services: From Contentbased to Activity-based Learning Systems. In Special interest tracks and posters of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1110-1111). ACM. Kirchner, K., & Razmerita, L. (2015, August). Collaborative Learning in the Cloud: A CrossCultural Perspective of Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Hypertext & Social Media (pp. 333-336). ACM. Klimke, J., & Döllner, J. (2010). Combining Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaboration within 3D City Models. In Geographic Information Science (pp. 115-129). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning (pp. 317-34). na. Kutti, N. S., Al-Khanjari, Z. A., Al-Hosni, A., & Sunil, L. (2007). EduLearn: An e-Learning Architecture for Prototyping Web-Based Learning Systems. InEnterprise Information Systems and Web Technologies (pp. 198-203). Laru, J., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Integrated Use of Multiple Social Software Tools and Face-to-Face Activities to Support Self-Regulated Learning: A Case Study in a Higher Education Context. In Seamless Learning in the Age of Mobile Connectivity (pp. 471-484). Springer Singapore.

25

Li, Y., Dong, M., & Huang, R. (2011). Designing Collaborative e-Learning Environments Based Upon Semantic Wiki: From Design Models to Application Scenarios. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 49-63. Lord, P., Atkinson, M., & Mitchell, H. (2008). Mentoring and coaching for professionals: A study of the research evidence. Variations, 1(4). Luna, W., & Sequera, J. L. C. (2015). Collaboration in the Cloud for Online Learning Environments: An Experience Applied to Laboratories. Creative Education, 6(13), 1435. Lytras, M. D., Mathkour, H. I., Abdalla, H., Al-Halabi, W., Yanez-Marquez, C., & Siqueira, S. W. M. (2015). An emerging–Social and emerging computing enabled philosophical paradigm for collaborative learning systems: Toward high effective next generation learning systems for the knowledge society. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 557-561. Mödritscher, F., & Wild, F. (2009). Sharing Good Practice through Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments. In Advances in Web Based Learning–ICWL 2009 (pp. 245-254). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Mott, J. (2010). Envisioning the post-LMS Era: The Open Learning Network. Educause Quarterly, 33(1), 1-9. Mott, J., & Wiley, D. (2013). Open for Learning: The CMS and the Open Learning Network. in education, 15(2). Murphy, K. L., Mahoney, S. E., Chen, C. Y., Mendoza‐Diaz, N. V., & Yang, X. (2005). A Constructivist Model of Mentoring, Coaching, and Facilitating Online Discussions. Distance Education, 26(3), 341-366. Norman, D. A., & Spohrer, J. C. (1996). Learner-centered Education. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 24-27. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating Argumentative Knowledge Construction through a Transactive Discussion Script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59-76. Pilkington, R. M., & Walker, S. A. (2003). Facilitating Debate in Networked Learning: Reflecting on Online Synchronous Discussion in Higher Education. Instructional Science, 31(1-2), 41-63. Polsani, P. R. (2006). Use and Abuse of Reusable Learning Objects. Journal of Digital information, 3(4). Popescu, E. (2014). Providing Collaborative Learning Support with Social Media in an Integrated Environment. World Wide Web, 17(2), 199-212. Popescu, E. (2015). Approaches to Designing Social Media-based Learning Spaces. In Proceedings of the 7th Balkan Conference on Informatics Conference (p. 40). ACM Popescu, E., Maria, C., & Udriştoiu, A. L. (2014). Fostering Collaborative Learning with Wikis: Extending MediaWiki with Educational Features. In Advances in Web-Based Learning– ICWL 2014 (pp. 22-31). Springer International Publishing. Potts, L. (2013). Social media in disaster response: How experience architects can build for participation. Routledge. Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2009). Scenario based design. Human‐computer interaction. Boca Raton, FL, 145-162. Saidani, O., Kaabi, R. S., Kraiem, N., & Baghdadi, Y. (2013, January). A Multidimensional Framework to Classify Goal-oriented Approaches for Services. In Computer Applications Technology (ICCAT), 2013 International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE. Scheinkman, J. A. (2008). Social Interactions. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2. Available in http://www.princeton.edu/~joses/wp/socialinteractions.pdf. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43-102. 26

Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2015). A pilot study: Facilitating Cross-cultural Understanding with Project-based Collaborative Learning in an Online Environment.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. Smith, R. S. (2004). Guidelines for Authors of Learning Objects. New Media Consortium. Smith, S. D., & Caruso, J. B. (2010). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010 (Research Study, Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar Soller, A., Martínez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261-290. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported Collaborative Learning: An Historical Perspective. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2006, 409-426. Vickers, R., Field, J., & Melakoski, C. (2015). Media Culture 2020: Collaborative Teaching and Blended Learning Using Social Media and Cloud-based Technologies. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6 (1), 62-73. Wang, X., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2011). Adaptable scripting in computersupported collaborative learning to foster knowledge and skill acquisition. In Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice: CSCL conference proceedings (Vol. 1). Wiley, D. A., Gibbons, A., & Recker, M. (2000). A reformulation of the issue of learning object granularity and its implications for the design of learning objects. The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington, Indiana: Agency for Instructional Technology and Association for Educational Communications of Technology. Won, S. G., Evans, M. A., Carey, C., & Schnittka, C. G. (2015). Youth appropriation of social media for collaborative and facilitated design-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 385-391. Xu, J., Du, J., & Fan, X. (2015). Students' Groupwork Management in Online Collaborative Learning Environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 195-205. Zdravev, Z., & Grceva, S. (2005). Developing Learning Objects Systems through Implementation of Learning Object Metadata Standard. The Second International Conference on Informatics, Educational Technology and new Media in Education. :273-279., Sombor, Serbia Yang, S. J. (2006). Context Aware Ubiquitous Learning Environments for Peer-to-Peer Collaborative Learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,9(1), 188-201. Yang, S. J., & Chen, I. Y. (2008). A social network-based system for supporting interactive collaboration in knowledge sharing over peer-to-peer network. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(1), 36-50.

27