COLLABORATIVE E-LEARNING BY MEANS
OF ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION FORUMS
AND GROUP TUTORIALS COMBINATION
Lorenzo Salas-Morera, Antonio Arauzo-Azofra and Laura García-Hernández
Área of Project Engineering, University of Córdoba, Campus Universitario de Rabanales, 14071, Córdoba, Spain
Keywords: Blended learning, Co-evaluation, Collaborative learning, Educational technology, e-Learning, Group
tutoring.
Abstract: A combination of teaching techniques including forums and group tutorials combination have been put into
practice in Industrial Engineering and Software Engineering degree courses in order to improve students'
academical performance and skills in areas including problem-solving, information management and group
working by means of a collaborative learning. In addition to implementing the new teaching techniques, a
set of assessment tools, including online quizzes, surveys, forum activity analyses and group tutorials co-
evaluation have been used. The results presented here are drawn from a six-year experiment and prove to be
a useful way of improving the students' general skills and knowledge.
1 INTRODUCTION
Over the last few years, a set of regulatory changes
have been introduced in European Higher Education
Area (EHEA) in order to overhaul the degrees'
structure and the teaching methods, incorporating
more active methodologies in which the students
responsibility on their learning process has increased
notably. In this way, teaching methods involving
more fluid and effective interaction between teacher
and students, and amongst the students themselves,
have acquired particular importance.
The results presented here are drawn from a six-
year experiment in Industrial Engineering and
Software Engineering courses. The aim of these
courses was to enhance the active and responsible
participation of students in the learning process by
means of replacing traditional teaching methods
based on teacher-centred classes and examinations
with an alternative based on various techniques such
as asynchronous discussion forums, group tutoring,
collaborative learning and peer assessment. To attain
this objective, the following secondary
considerations had to be addressed (Salas-Morera et
al. 2009; Lan and Yang, 2009):
a) Students need to be motivated to work regularly
and follow the correct sequence of activities.
b) Overall student working time needs to be appro-
priate to the credits assigned for the subject.
c) The teacher needs to be able to attend,
appropriately and at a suitable pace, to all the
students in the time available.
d) The students need to receive prompt and reliable
feedback on the results of the assessments.
e) The members of the group need to interact
proactively between themselves and with their
teacher.
The results of this experiment were generally highly
positive since students rated very highly the
exchange of information through the forum, while
the role of the teacher as motivator and moderator
was regarded as crucial. Similarly it was seen as
essential that the general scheduling of the students’
work be well coordinated in terms of the course as a
whole, and realistic in terms of the amount of effort
required.
2 BACKGROUND
e-Learning tools are being widely used in the
teaching-learning process as a complement to
conventional university classes, as well as in
distance-learning institutions (Yau et al. 2009).
These tools, among which Blackboard, WebCT and
367
Salas-Morera L., Arauzo-Azofra A. and García-Hernández L..
COLLABORATIVE E-LEARNING BY MEANS OF ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION FORUMS AND GROUP TUTORIALS COMBINATION.
DOI: 10.5220/0003441803670374
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CeLS-2011), pages 367-374
ISBN: 978-989-8425-50-8
Copyright
c
2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
Moodle, give teachers the possibility to make
learning more attractive, dynamic and participatory
by virtue of forums, virtual tutorials, wikis, surveys,
online quizzes etc. (Kozaris, 2010). In the same way,
the students receive information immediately, both
in terms of content and activities, as well as the
results of assessments (Lahwal et al. 2009).
However, using e-learning tools has some
difficulties, as for example that they require
sufficient resources in terms of hardware and
technical staff to guarantee that such tools are
available with enough flexibility and efficiency
(McPherson and Nunes, 2008); and that teachers and
students need to have certain skills that they may not
necessarily possess at the outset.
Asynchronous discussion forums are a very
useful tool for encouraging the critical dimension of
learning; students interactions, both among
themselves and with the instructor, yield a synergy
in the approach to preparing, sharing and
understanding information, which fosters a fuller
understanding of the material to be studied (Erlin et
al. 2009). Nevertheless, the efficient use of these
activities has certain obstacles, due to a lack of
students participation, a lack of quality in the
contributions, and the use of the forum as a means of
exchanging information unrelated to the subject
(Lan and Yang, 2009). Other important point to take
into account is the role of the teacher as forum
director. Mazzolini and Maddison (2003) report that
the instructor intervention tends to generate more
student satisfaction than peer participation, but
increasing instructor participation also helps to
shorten discussions, without necessarily impairing
their final quality, so it is essential to decide what
goals the forum seeks to achieve since these goals
should govern the level and style of teacher
participation. In this way, According to Rovai
(2007), it is essential to pay attention on a number of
factors: motivating students participation in forums
by awarding them a mark; leaving students clear
from the beginning that their participation is
expected; giving opportunities for socio-emotional
discussions; and ensuring that discussions remain
content-oriented and task-oriented. Also, teachers
need to avoid becoming the centre of attention and
encouraging equality in terms of the culture, gender
and status of their students.
Since participation in online forums needs to be
evaluated, other important considerations to keep in
mind include the evaluation method selected and the
teacher effort involved to the effectiveness of the
assessment in terms of learning objectives. In this
way, Dennen (2008) remarks the importance of
evaluating student participation in forums, but
questions the efficacy of the evaluation systems,
arguing that the length and the number of messages
posted by each student do not necessarily reflect the
learning achieved, so he suggests four different
methods of assessment:
a) Participation measures: a relationship between the
quantity of messages and learning cannot be
assumed, so this is not strictly an evaluation method.
b) Message content and quality measures: much
more reliable, but more difficult to measure and
requiring more effort on the part of the teacher
(something that must also be borne in mind).
c) Holistic measurements: simultaneously taking
into account both quality and quantity.
d) Asking for short reports on the students
experiences in the discussion processes.
Furthermore, it is very important that professors to
take into account, not only students' performance
and knowledge acquisition, but the practical skills
needed for the students' professional development
too (Barrella et al. 2006). Thus, considerable efforts
have been made over recent decades, to define the
skills needed by engineering students. In the case of
engineering and technology, as well as the relevant
local and national regulations, the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology [ABET]
(2009) Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Programs, must also be taken into account. Among
such skills the following stand out:
a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,
science, and engineering.
b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as
well as to analyse and interpret data.
c) An ability to design a system, component, or
process to meet desired needs within realistic
constraints prompted by economic, environmental,
social, political, ethical, health and safety,
manufacturability, and sustainability considerations.
d) An ability to function in multidisciplinary teams.
e) An ability to identify, formulate, and solve
engineering problems.
f) An understanding of professional and ethical
responsibility.
g) An ability to communicate effectively.
h) The broad education necessary to understand the
impact of engineering solutions in a global,
economic, environmental and societal context.
i) A recognition of the need for, and an ability to
engage in, life-long learning.
j) A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k) An ability to use the techniques, skills and mo-
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
368
dern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
3 METHODS
The aim was to adapt the teaching methodology
used in the modules of the University of Córdoba’s
Engineering Projects section to the model set out by
the European Higher Education Area. In this way, an
improvement of students knowledge and skills by
means of collaborative reflection on the subject
matter, is expected. The modules in question are
worth 4.5 ECTS credits (European Commission,
2009) and the contents relate to Project
Management. According to the syllabus, the
following student skills should be developed:
a) Adaptation to new situations.
b) Analysis of client requirements.
c) Ability to analyse and synthesise.
d) Ability to apply knowledge in practice.
e) Ability to manage information.
f) Ability to organise and plan.
g) Oral and written communication skills.
h) Estimating and programming work.
i) Design methods.
j) New technologies (ICT).
k) Strategic organisation and planning .
l) Problem solving.
m) Decision taking.
A variety of face-to-face and non face-to-face (using
Moodle) teaching tools, were carried out in order to
accomplish these abilities. Specifically, activities
comprised: online quizzes, asynchronous discussion
forums, groups tutorials and practical sessions, as
well as theory classes. Each one of this activities is
assigned a percentage of the final marks: reports on
practical sessions, 12.5%; online quizzes, 25%;
asynchronous discussion forums, 10%; group
tutorials, 12.5% and final examination, 40%. The
breakdown of anticipated hours of work for each of
the scheduled activities, in accordance with the
number of credits assigned to the subject matter is
shown in Table 1.
3.1 Asynchronous Discussion Forum
and Group Tutorials Combination
The asynchronous discussion forum in combination
with groups tutorials proved to be the most
productive of the tools tested in these courses, in
relation to the effort required. The main aim of the
forum was to maintain contact and keep the group’s
attention focused on the themes raised by the subject
matter. For their part, teachers were able to take
stock of the way knowledge is developing within the
group, allowing them to direct their students’ work
from a distance in a way that was virtually
unnoticeable. The teacher’s role in regard to student
forum postings was twofold: when a student asked a
question or put forward a subject for debate, the
teachers kept to the sidelines in the hope that the
students would come up with an answer between
themselves, as freely and spontaneously as possible,
intervening to make minor suggestions or encourage
others to join in. Secondly, if the teacher noticed any
drop-off in forum postings over a certain period, he
suggested new subjects for discussion, thus
encouraging students to seek information on
additional aspects of the subject. Subjects suggested
by teachers included: ACM/IEEE Computing
Curricula, ethical regulations in the engineering
professions, and professional activities in general,
among others.
Table 1: Distribution of students' workload.
Face-to-face activities
Assigned time
(hours)
Individual and virtual activities
Assigned time
(hours)
Whole group activities Online quizzes and preparation (O.Q.) 12
Theoretical Blocks & Problem
Solving (T.B.)
33 Asynchronous Discussion Forums (A.D.F.) 10
Tutorial Sessions (T.) 6 Studying 30
Groups of up to 25 students Homework 10
Practical Sessions (P.S.) 12 Personal Tutoring 1
Group Tutorial Sessions (G.T.) 9
Total individual and virtual activities
estimated time
63
Total face-to-face time
assigned
60
Final Examination
5
Students' total working time (60+63+5) 128
COLLABORATIVE E-LEARNING BY MEANS OF ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION FORUMS AND GROUP
TUTORIALS COMBINATION
369
Table 2: Discussion forum activity, 2004-2005 to 2009-2010.
YEAR 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
S
ubjects started by the teacher (A) 25 54 26 35 46 55
T
otal number of replies to subjects started by the teacher (B) 48 136 33 52 193 210
R
eplies per subject started by the teacher (A/B) 1.92 2.52 1.27 1.49 4.20 3.82
S
ubjects started by students (C) 56 80 36 57 99 72
T
otal number of replies to subjects started by students (D) 140 198 91 184 480 409
R
eplies per subject started by students (C/D) 2.50 2.48 2.53 3.23 4.85 5.68
It was considered important not to base
evaluations of forum activity only on the number of
contributions from each student, so the evaluation of
forum content, although it required more work on
the part of the teaching staff, was holistic in nature,
awarding a higher score to the most relevant
contributions. Although Moodle gives the possibility
of evaluating forum contributions individually, an
external spreadsheet was used.
Forum activity did not take place in isolation
from the rest of the activities in the course, but rather
as a reinforcement of all the other activities, in its
role as the default communication tool. This role
was further enhanced by group tutorials. The aim of
these tutorials was to enable students to work
together on the subjects discussed in the forum over
the previous weeks. Thus, little groups up to five
students were given the task to summarize, analyse
and present to the rest of the group the debates
occurred during the last two weeks in order to have a
deeper and consistent face-to-face debate. To do
this, students needed to make use of their analytical
and synthetical skills, their ability to manage
information, their ability to express themselves
clearly in speaking and writing, and their planning
and organisational skills. The pooling of the subjects
discussed in the forum helped to highlight the most
important concepts and to address mistakes which
might otherwise have been impossible to detect. For
the purposes of this activity, the main group was
divided into four groups of up to 25 students, and in
turn each of these was sub-divided into four
subgroups of four to five students. Group and
subgroup divisions were made on the basis of
affinity between students at the beginning of the
year. There were five discussion sessions, organised
as follows:
a) At the beginning of the year there was a one-hour
session with each group of up to 25 students. In this
session students were asked to introduce themselves
to other members of the group. There was also an
initial survey in which students were asked about the
extent to which they believed they have already
acquired the skills targeted by the module, as well as
the importance they attached to these skills for their
future careers.
b) Four two-hour sessions were held with each of
the groups of up to 25 students, distributed
uniformly throughout the semester. Prior to each
session, one of the four subgroups was asked to
monitor the forum and prepare a handout with an
outline of the most important themes, which they
discussed with the teaching staff. Once the teacher
had approved the summary, the subgroup prepared a
Microsoft Office or OpenOffice presentation, which
was also sent to the teacher for approval. Finally, in
the group tutorial session, they gave the
presentation, which lasted no more than 40 minutes,
to the rest of the group; the remainder of the 2-hour
session was devoted to a group discussion of the
subjects addressed in the presentation. Assessment
of this session was carried out jointly by the teacher
(50%) and the other students in the group (50%).
The following points were assessed: presentation
quality; appropriateness of material (joint ratings for
all subgroup members); oral expression during the
presentation; and oral expression during the
discussion (the last two points were rated
individually).
3.2 Other Assessable Activities
The remaining assessable activities comprised six
two-hour practical sessions in the laboratory or
computer room in small groups up to 25 students
and six online quizzes, both regularly distributed
along the semester. Prior to each practical session, a
handout for the session was published on Moodle,
which dealt with problem-solving using specific
software (for example Microsoft Project or
OpenProject). The global assessment was completed
with a final examination.
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
370
The main aim of the online quizzes were to
encourage students to study on a regular basis, at a
rhythm set by teachers and that will allow students
to keep up with the progress of the course. When a
quiz comes round, the students have four days in
which they are free to complete it at any time, on
condition that once they open it they have to finish it
within 40 minutes. Each quiz comprised up to 10-15
questions varied in difficulty and randomly assigned
to students, so each student would have a different
quiz. The students needed to study and revise these
concepts at least with the same frequency that the
teacher scheduled the quizzes, with great benefits for
the development of other activities. Once the
students had completed two quizzes, the teacher
obtained from Moodle a file containing a statistical
analysis of student answers, which he then analysed
in order to identify the main weaknesses; afterwards,
a 2-hour tutorial was held with the whole group, in
which the tested material was discussed, paying
special attention to those areas in which the poorest
results were obtained.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To evaluate the experiment the following tools were
used: analysis of forum activity; academic result of
group tutorials; surveys on perceived competences
before and after the course; and comparison of
overall academic performance.
4.1 Analysis of Forum Activity
Changes in forum activity between academic years
2004-2005 and 2009-2010 are charted in Table 2,
which shows that student participation in the forum
increased from 2007-2008, the first year that this
activity was included in the overall mark; a
significant increase was noticed not only in the
number of threads started by the students but also in
the number of responses, indicating that the
awarding of a mark greatly encouraged participation.
Comparing the number of threads started with
the number of participating students of each year
gave averages of 0.47, 1, 1.55 and 1.33 threads
started per student in the last four years, which
tended to reinforce the claim that the forum
generated a growing interest among students over
the years. Similarly, comparison of the number of
answers with the number of participating students in
each year yielded figures of 1.18, 3.23, 7.50 and
7.57, further supporting this hypothesis.
The quality of contributions also improved over
time, with the students themselves realising that off-
topic or repetitive responses were unlikely to receive
good marks. Thus the forum proved a useful tool in
focusing students’ attention on the topics targeted by
the module, leading to contributions that gradually
become more and more relevant.
4.2 Academic Results of Groups
The group tutorial activity brought together other
activities in the module through the questions
emerging on the forum. It also helped to foster the
most important skills in the area, such as ability to
analyse and synthesise, to manage information, and
to organise and plan work, as well as speaking and
writing skills. Moreover, all students were given
shared responsibility in the evaluation of tutorials.
The following were assessed: presentation quality;
appropriateness of material (joint ratings for all
subgroup members); oral expression during the
presentation; and oral expression during the
discussion (the last two points are rated
individually). Both the teacher and the other students
in the group assessed all members of the subgroup
on each of the aspects mentioned above, and the
overall mark was derived (50%-50%) from the
teacher’s score and the students’ score. Scores
awarded by the teacher covered a wider range
(practically from 0 to 10), whilst student scores
tended to be concentrated in a narrower range
between six and nine points. An independent-
samples t-test was conducted in order to know
whether there are statistically significant differences
between scores assigned by teacher and scores
assigned by students in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.
In the first year a significant difference was found
between scores assigned by teacher (M1=7.21;
SD1=1.67) and by students (M2=6.73; SD2=0,90);
t(98)=2.03, p=0.045, so students were more
demanding with their classmates than the teacher
was. In 2009-2010, however, the hypothesis of
equality of means was accepted (M1=7.08;
SD1=1.29; M2=7.30; SD2=0.55; t(83)=-1.25,
p=0.21), so the student score not being significantly
higher than the teacher-awarded score. Thus no
reliable conclusions can be drawn from these
findings, suggesting that a further sample needs to
be taken in order to reach firmer conclusions.
Similarly, the teacher’s score was compared to
the mark finally awarded to the students. Here there
was no statistically significant difference in the two
years being investigated (M1=7.21; SD1=1.67;
M2=6,97; SD2=1.19; t(116)=0.95, p=0.35);
COLLABORATIVE E-LEARNING BY MEANS OF ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION FORUMS AND GROUP
TUTORIALS COMBINATION
371
(M1=7.08; SD1=1.29; M2=7.38; SD2=0.76; t(99)=-
1.56, p=0.12), indicating that the students
participation did not have a significant influence on
the mark.
4.3 Self-assessed Skills Surveys
In order to determine the extent to which the
experiment improved students’ skills and the
importance the students attached to these skills for
their professional careers, surveys were carried out
in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, at the beginning and
end of the year, using a scale of 1-5. The most
striking finding was that in both two years there was
an across-the-board increase in students’ perceptions
of their own skills, indicating that working method
achieved its goals to a considerable degree, at least
in terms of students’ perceptions. At the outset, the
competence considered by students as being least
important for their professional career was Design
Methods; the student grading of this competence by
the end of the year had increased more than for any
other competence; in the second year, it was the
competence recording the second-greatest increase
in student grading. Meanwhile, the skill showing
least improvement in both years was New
Technologies (ICT), possibly because the students
considered that they had already developed
considerable abilities in this area over the course of
their studies and that it was now difficult for them to
show further improvement. In both years the subject
considered a priori most important by students was
Decision-Making, thus reflecting the general
approach of the degree, which is strongly oriented
towards project performance and management.
When the means at the start and at the end of
each year were statistically compared by means of t-
test, significant differences were found in almost all
cases what clearly remarks the success of the
experience in this aspect.
4.4 Academic Performance
Final student marks were analysed for the last ten
academic years. In the first period, 2000-2001 to
2003-2004, traditional teaching methods were used,
with theoretical-practical classes and final
examinations as the only method of evaluation.
During this period there was a marked drop in the
number of students passing the study subjects. This
led to an overhaul of teaching methods in 2004-
2005, taking advantage of the implementation of the
ECTS. For the first time, all the activities to be
carried out by students (rather than just attendance at
lectures) were scheduled in detail; the programme
was fine-tuned by weekly feedback as the course
progressed. At the same time, a discussion forum
was included on Moodle, although this forum did
not initially contribute to the final mark; finally,
online quizzes were scheduled. In the first year of
implementation of the ECTS, there was a notable
increase in pass rate as a positive consequence of the
detailed scheduling. However, over the next two
years (2004-2005 and 2005-2006) the number of
failures again rose, perhaps because more teachers
changed their teaching methods, leading students to
complain about the large number of tasks they were
expected to perform simultaneously. Given this
situation, and with the aim of encouraging even
greater participation in the forum, from 2007-2008
10% of the overall mark was allotted to assessment
of participation in the forum. The forum came to be
one of the most useful and valued activities, both for
the students, who appreciated its immediacy and
ease of use, and for the teachers, who valued it as a
way of answering questions and clarifying grey
areas. As soon as forum activity was included in the
final mark, all the activities required of the students
were incorporated into the assessment, allowing
teachers to calculate the students’ workload more
accurately, and enabling students to adapt their
efforts to reflect the percentage of the final mark
represented by each activity. The result was a
substantial increase in forum participation, as well as
an enhancement of its value, thanks to an
improvement in the quality of student postings.
There was again an increase in the number of passes
in that academic year, confirming that the changes
had been appropriate. Finally, in 2008-2009 and
2009-2010 the group tutorial activity was added, in
which groups of up to 25 students discussed topics
raised in the forum in preceding weeks. The aim of
this activity was to foster the basic skills required by
graduates, as well as linking with other course
activities; the introduction of this activity prompted
a new increase in pass levels.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In recent years a combination of teaching strategies,
including asynchronous discussion forums and
group tutorials, has been implemented in Industrial
Engineering and Software Engineering degree
courses with the aim of improving some students'
skills needed in Engineering. These strategies have
prompted greater skills acquisition, as well as
enabling students to regulate their workload.
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
372
Participation in the forum, and also the quality of
postings, rose substantially from the moment that
assessment of this activity started to contribute to the
overall mark for the course. Perhaps as a result of
greater use of the forum, there was also an
improvement in the way students perceived the
accessibility of their teachers, even if such
accessibility was only online.
Teacher participation in the forum is important
and needs to fulfil a dual role: first motivating
students to participate and exchange information and
secondly starting new discussion topics when forum
activity abates. Students are seen to be more
diffident about participating when it is the teacher
who starts a discussion; it is therefore advisable for
the teacher to keep to the sidelines, intervening only
to correct mistakes and encourage participation
rather than leading discussions.
Group tutorials are a core activity in the new
teaching methodology. They enable the work of the
group to focus on the topics discussed in the forum,
and they actively contribute to the development of
skills such as the ability to manage information, to
analyse and synthesise, as well as enhancing oral
and written expression and other competences. Peer
assessment of this activity consolidates the
responsibility students feel towards themselves as
well as towards their colleagues. However, in the
two study years, peer scores was not decisive for the
final marks obtained, given that there were no
significant differences between the final marks and
those awarded by the teachers alone, which indicates
that the assessment system needs to be revised in the
future.
According to students, skills improved in each
study year. The skills showing most improvement
were Design Methods and Organisation and
Planning Ability; this is consistent with the general
philosophy of the content of the Projects module and
the way the activities were planned.
Future prospects of research deal with improving
activity planning, making it more realistic with the
students' workload, analysing the real effect of co-
evaluation, not only on the final marks but also on
the students' attitude in facing the academic
activities, and finally, searching for new ways of
evaluating skill acquisition.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Córdoba University Quality Vice
Chancellor for the support given to the Educational
Improvement and Innovation Project 08C4005.
REFERENCES
ABET. (2009). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Programs. Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology. 29 pp. Retrieved January 29, 2011, from
http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE
/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2010-11%20EAC%20
Criteria%201-27-10.pdf
Barrella, E., Simmons, J., Buffinton, K. (2006).
Professional Engineering Education Best Practice
Study for First-Year, Multi-disciplinary Courses.
ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference
Proceedings, 10p.
Dennen, V. P. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning:
Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 205-219.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.010
European Commission. (2009). ECTS Users’ Guide.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, 60 pp, ISBN: 978-92-79-
09728-7. Retrieved January 29, 2011, from
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/
doc/ects/guide_en.pdf
Erlin, Yusof, N., & Rhaman, A. A. (2009). Students’
Interactions in Online Asynchronous Discussion
Forum: A Social Network Analysis. International
Conference on Education Technology and Computer,
25-29. doi: 10.1109/ISDA.2009.40
Kozaris, I. A. (2010). Platforms for e-learning. Analytical
and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 397, (3), 893-898.
doi:10.1007/s00216-010-3587-x
Lan, Y. F., Yan, C. L. (2009). A Practical Approach to
Encourage Students’ Participation in Asynchronous
Online Discussions Based on Expectancy Theory.
International Conference on Virtual Environments,
Human-Computer Interfaces and Measurements
Systems. Article number 5068907, 271-276.
doi:10.1109/VECIMS.2009.5068907
Lahwal, F., Amaimin, M., Al-Ajlan, A. (2009). Perception
Cultural Impacts: Principles for Trainers’ skills for E-
learning. NCM 2009 - 5th International Joint
Conference on INC, IMS, and IDC. Article number
5331619, 986-993. doi:10.1109/NCM.2009.375
Mazzolini, M.; Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost?
The effect of instructor intervention on student
participation in online discussion forums. Computers
& Education, 40, 237-253. doi:10.1016/S0360-
1315(02)00129-X
McPherson, M. C., Nunes, J. M. (2008). Critical issues for
e-learning delivery: What may seem obvious is not
always put into practice. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 24 (5), 433-445. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2008.00281.x
Rovai, A. P. (2008). Facilitating online discussions
effectively. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 77–88.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001
Salas-Morera, L., Berral- Yerón, J., Serrano-Gómez, I.,
Martínez-Jiménez, P. (2009). An Assessment of the
ECTS in Software Engineering: A Teaching
COLLABORATIVE E-LEARNING BY MEANS OF ASYNCHRONOUS DISCUSSION FORUMS AND GROUP
TUTORIALS COMBINATION
373
Experience. IEEE Transactions On Education, 52 (1),
177-184. doi: 10.1109/TE.2008.921801
Yau, J., Lam, J., Cheung, K. S. (2009). A Review of e-
Learning Platforms in the Age of e-Learning 2.0. 2nd
International Conference on Hybrid Learning and
Education. ICHL 2009, LNCS 5685 (pp. 208-217).
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03697-2_20
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
374