Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The constitutionally enshrined and widely recognized racial categories in South Africa are those racial identity markers established during the apartheid era namely Black African, Colored (for the mixed race), Indian/Asian and White. While I draw on them as the commonly known identity markers in the post independent South Africa albeit their heavily contested nature, such use does not necessarily mean my legitimization of these terms. The use of the term “people of colour”, which is prevalent in the United States racial discourse is uncommon in the South Africa context, and hence was dropped in this study.

References

  • Abdelraheem, A., & Asan, A. (2006). The effectiveness of inquiry-based technology enhanced collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 65–87. http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/issue0602/Ahmed%20ASan%20Vol2%20Issue2.pdf

  • Abrantes, S., & Gouveia, L. (2011). Comparing Google Groups use by evaluating flow experience and generated messages in laptop and desktop higher education students. In Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE) 2011 (pp. 1–20). Novi Sad, Serbia: Higher Education Technical School of Professional Studies, 18–23 June 2011. http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2011/InSITE11p001-020Abrantes279.pdf

  • Alexander, L. (2013). Case study 6: Google Groups to enhance engagement. In C. Brown, & D. Gachago (Eds.), Emerging technologies in higher education: A guide for South African higher education practitioners (pp. 26–27). Cape Town, South Africa. http://www.mrowe.co.za/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Emerging-ICTs-in-SA-higher-education-guide.pdf

  • Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_anderson.asp

  • Appleton, J., Christenson, S., & Furlong, M. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the schools, 45(Iss 5), 369–386. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20303/abstract

  • Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T., & Williams, M. (2010). Professional development 2.0: Transforming teacher education pedagogy with 21st century tools. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of priorities and practices in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beamish, E., McDade, D., & Mulvenna, M. (2012). Better together: The trail user participation toolkit for living labs. Ulster: University of Ulster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bécares, L., & Priest, N. (2015). Understanding the influence of race/ethnicity, gender, and class on inequalities in academic and non-academic outcomes among eighth-grade students: Findings from an intersectionality approach. PLoS ONE, 10(10), 1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. In C. H. Steel, M. J., Keppell, P., Gerbic & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 75–86). Sydney: Ascilite, 5–10 December 2010. http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Beer-full.pdf

  • Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009a). Sharing and collaborating with Google Docs: The influence of psychological ownership, responsibility, and student’s attitudes on outcome quality. In T. Bastiaens et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 3329–3335). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009b). What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome quality of collaboration. In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, & Y. Yair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research 2009: Learning in the technological era (pp. 48–55). Raanana: The Open University of Israel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and healthcare education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brack, C., & Van Damme, M-P. (2010). The wiki factor: Scaffolding online learning in groups. In C. Steel, M. Keppell, P. Gerbic & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 41–146). Sydney: Ascilite, 5–10 December 2010. http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/brack-concise.pdf

  • Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. (2011). Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies: Education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 73–103. http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol10/JITEv10IIPp073-103Brodahl948.pdf

  • Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., & Gachago, G. (2013). Emerging technologies in higher education: A guide for South African higher education practitioners. Cape Town, South Africa. http://www.mrowe.co.za/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Emerging-ICTs-in-SA-higher-education-guide.pdf

  • Burnard, P. (1991). A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today, 11(6), 461–466. doi:10.1016/0260-6917(91)90009-Y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R., Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2008). The adaptation of Chinese international students to online flexible learning: Two case studies. Distance Education, 29(3), 307–323. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&context=edupapers

  • Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2012). Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and Information Technologies, 17, 1–25. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1#page-1

  • Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2006). Nonvoluntary class participation in graduate discussion courses: Effects of grading and cold calling. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 354–377. http://jme.sagepub.com/content/30/2/354.full.pdf

  • Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2010). Class participation in accounting courses: Factors that affect student comfort and learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 25(4), 613–629. doi:10.2308/iace.2010.25.4.613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, S. (1982). Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review, 47, 797–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142. http://rer.sagepub.com/content/59/2/117.abstract

  • Fogarty, R., & McTighe, J. (1993). Educating teachers for higher order thinking: The three-story intellect theory into practice. Teaching for Higher Order Thinking, 32(3), 161–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fouch`e, C. B., & Schurink, W. (2011). Qualitative research designs. In A. De Vos, H. Strydom, C. Fouch`e, & C. Delport (Eds.), Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human service professions (pp. 307–327). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

  • Garrison, D. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1), 61–72. http://wiki.sln.suny.edu/download/attachments/4032379/v11n1_8garrison.pdf

  • Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751600000166

  • Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2004). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_CogPres_Final.pdf

  • Greenwood, C., Carta, J., & Kamps, D. (1990). Teacher versus peer-mediated instruction. In H. Foot, M. Morgan, & R. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 177–206). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hane, J. (2010). Google Wave and computer supported collaborative learning: Impact on Higher Education. Research Bulletin, 13, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (2006). Using Google Groups in the classroom: A case study. Sprouts Working Papers on Information Systems, 6(69), 1–9. http://sprouts.aisnet.org/1161/1/Paper_Google_groups.pdf

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Students’ use of asynchronous voice discussion in a blended-learning environment: A study of two undergraduate classes. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(Iss 4), 360–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. (2002). Evaluating students’ participation in on-line discussions. Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/ho/paper.html

  • Hoeane, T. (2004, November 7). Closing the race debate no way to resolve tensions. Sunday Independent.

  • Horton, J. (2008). Net and nodes: Social network analysis and PR. http://www.online-pr.com/Holding/Social_Network_analysis_article.pdf

  • Hovey, C. (2014). The affect of environmental web-design on student perceptions of social presence in online learning communities. Masters Thesis, Ohio.

  • Hu, S., & Kuht, G. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1020114231387#page-1

  • Ingram, A.L. (2005). Engagement in online learning communities. In J. Bourne & J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 55–67). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. https://www.academia.edu/580754/Engagement_in_online_learning_communities.

  • Ioannou, A., & Artino, A. (2008). Incorporating Wikis in an educational technology course: Ideas, reflections and lessons learned. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2008 (pp. 3353–3358). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, K. (2010). What value assessment rubrics in shaping students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussions? In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppel, P. Gerbic., & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 454–458). Sydney: Ascilite, 5–10 December 2010. http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/sydney10/procs/Jackson-concise.pdf

  • Knapp, N. (2014). Flipping an online course using Google Hangouts. Proceedings of the conference on higher education pedagogy (pp. 191–192). Blacksburg: Virginia Tech.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, K. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274–283. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08284.x/pdf

  • Marín, V., & de Benito, B. (2011). A design of a postgraduate course on Google Apps based on an institutional personal learning environment (iPLE). In Proceedings of the The PLE conference (pp. 1–5). Southampton: University of Southampton. http://gte.uib.es/pape/gte/sites/gte.uib.es.pape.gte/files/workshopiple_definitivo.pdf

  • Maslo, I., Surikova, S., & Gonzalez, M. (2014). Elearning for widening participation in Higher education. In V. Zuzevičiūtė, E. Butrimė, D. Vitkutė-Adžgauskienė, V. Fomin, & K. Kikis-Papadakis (Eds.), E-learning as a social cultural system: A multidimensional analysis (pp. 21–42). Hershey: Information Science Reference, IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, K., & Oberprieler, G. (2004). Encouraging equitable online participation through curriculum articulation. Computers and Education, 42(4), 319–332. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131503000940

  • McDonald, C., & Loch, B. (2008). Adjusting the community of inquiry approach to a synchronous mathematical context. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings Ascilite Melbourne 2008 (pp. 603–606). Melbourne: Ascilite, 30 November–03 December 2008.

  • McLaughlin, M., McGrath, D. J., Burian-Fitzgerald, M. A., Lanahan, L., Scotchmer, M., Enyeart, C., et al. (2005). Student content engagement as a construct for the measurement of effective classroom instruction and teacher knowledge. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, J., Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face to face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulvenna, M. (2012). Preface before starting. Trial Living Lab. Coleraine: University of Ulster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, P., Goi, C. & Gribble, S. (2008). Adaptation of Google group for online teaching and learning. In Engaging communities. Proceedings of the 31st HERDSA annual conference (pp. 252–260). Rotorua, New Zealand, 1–4 July 2008.

  • Parsons, J., & Taylor. L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? University of Alberta, Canada, March 2011. http://education.alberta.ca/media/6459431/student_engagement_literature_review_2011.pdf

  • Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6, 21–40. http://www.anitacrawley.net/Articles/Picciano2002.pdf

  • Rawlings, C., & McFarland, D. (2011). Influence flows in the academy: Using affiliation networks to assess peer effects among researchers. Social Science Research, 40, 1001–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating coWeb: A scholarship of application. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimor, R., Rosen, Y., & Naser, K. (2010). Complexity of social interactions in collaborative learning: The case of online database environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6, 355–365. www.ijello.org/Volume6/IJELLOv6p355-365Rimor711.pdf

  • Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology and Society, 10(4), 257–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13. http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/Files/Courses_Folder/ED%20261%20Papers/Sfard_ER1998.pdf

  • Shipilov, A., Labianca, G., Kalnysh, V., & Kalnysh, Y. (2014). Network-building behavioral tendencies, range, and promotion speed. Social Networks, 39, 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solís, A. (2008). Teaching for cognitive engagement: Materializing the promise of sheltered instruction. San Antonio: Intercultural Development Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srba, J. (2010). An experiment with using google tools for project supervision at tertiary education. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computer systems and technologies and workshop for PhD students in computing—CompSysTech’10 (pp. 430–435). Sofia, Bulgaria, 18–19 June 2010.

  • Summerlee, A. J. S. (2010). Challenge of engagement inside and outside the classroom: the future for universities. In E. De Corte & J. E. Fenstad (Eds.), From information to knowledge; from knowledge to wisdom (pp. 67–78). London: Portland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, T., Chen, W., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Zhang, M., & Lin, C. (2010). Participation maximization based on social influence in online discussion forums. Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2010-142 (pp. 1–14). October 2010

  • Taye, B. (2014). Online discussion for block teaching in postgraduate health professionals’ curriculum: The Ethiopian experience. BMC Medical Education, 14, 29, 1–6. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/14/29

  • Thompson, T., & MacDonald, C. (2005). Community building, emergent design and expecting the unexpected: Creating a quality eLearning experience. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 233–249. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751605000369

  • Weaver, C., & Albion. P. (2005). Momentum in online discussions: The effect of social presence on motivation for participation. Ascilite 2005: Balance, Fidelity, Mobility: maintaining the momentum? (pp. 703–706). Brisbane, Australia. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/81_Weaver.pdf

  • Weaver, R. R., & J. Qi. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students’ perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570–600. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3838840?sid=21105130304731&uid=2&uid=3739368&uid=4

  • Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). http://www.unb.ca/crisp/pdf/0306.pdf

  • Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic and intellectual engagement. First National Report. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/otherreports/WDYDIST_National_Report_EN.pdf

  • Yukselturk, E., & Top, E. (2013). Exploring the link among entry characteristics, participation behaviors and course outcomes of online learners: An examination of learner profile using cluster analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 716–728. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01339.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2007). Listening for silence in text‐based, online encounters. Distance Education, 28(1), 5–24. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01587910701305285

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Support Studies, Faculty of Management Sciences, Central University of Technology, Free State Private Bag X20539, Bloemfontein, South Africa

    Patient Rambe

Authors
  1. Patient Rambe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patient Rambe.

Appendix: Google Group interview guide

Appendix: Google Group interview guide

Demographics

Age

Gender

Race

Nationality

Profession

Year on the job

Years of prior experience in using Google Groups

Motivation for use of technology

  1. 1.

    What motivated your use of Google Groups?

  2. 2.

    What did you use it for?

Social and academic background issues

  1. 3.

    How did your social background influence your use of Google Groups?

  2. 4.

    How did your life experience shape your use of this platform? If not, how so?

  3. 5.

    What role did your cultural backgrounds (social norms, social expectations and cultural traditions) play in shaping your use of this technology? If not how so?

  4. 6.

    How did your (lack of) technological familiarity shape your use of this technology?

  5. 7.

    How did your previous academic background influence your use of Google Groups? If not how so?

Academic impact of Google Groups

  1. 8.

    How were your academic interactions on the platform affected by your use of this platform?

  2. 9.

    How were your academic interactions in class affected by your use of this platform?

  3. 10.

    How were your collaborative engagements shaped by your use of Google Groups?

  4. 11.

    How were your social interactions in class and outside classroom influenced by your use of this platform?

  5. 12.

    How were the social relationships of your peers affected by your use of technology?

  6. 13.

    In what was your participation in class and in Google Groups impacted by your use of this platform?

Impact of Google Groups on professional identity

  1. 1.

    How was your professional identity (during that time and thereafter) shaped by your use of Google Groups?

  2. 2.

    How was your professional work affected by your use of this technology?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rambe, P. Spaces for interactive engagement or technology for differential academic participation? Google Groups for collaborative learning at a South African University. J Comput High Educ 29, 353–387 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9141-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9141-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation