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

 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

Total face-to-face time

assigned

Final Examination

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

ubjects started by the teacher (A) 25 54 26 35 46 55

otal number of replies to subjects started by the teacher (B) 48 136 33 52 193 210

eplies per subject started by the teacher (A/B) 1.92 2.52 1.27 1.49 4.20 3.82

ubjects started by students (C) 56 80 36 57 99 72

otal number of replies to subjects started by students (D) 140 198 91 184 480 409

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