USING SYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION TO FACILITATE GRADUATE STUDENTS’ ONLINE COLLABORATION

There has been a consensus that interactivity is an essential component for successful distance education (Berge, 1999; Kearsely, 1995; Moore, 1993). In Web-based education environment, instructors and learners are not physically present. Consequently, computermediated communication (CMC) is widely utilized to promote interaction in distance education. CMC is divided into synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous (delayed time) communications (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). In a review of CMC research, Bannan-Ritland (2002) stated that the majority of CMC research studies focused on asynchronous communication and she suggested studies on synchronous communication were needed to enrich the literature. The present study was designed to investigate how synchronous communication facilitates the collaboration among online graduate students and their perceptions of synchronous communication in their online learning.

Asynchronous communication is believed to have advantages over synchronous communication in distance education. Asynchronous communication provides learners with the convenience of participating in discussions wherever and whenever they desire. Thus, it allows participants more time for thoughtful reflection. On the other hand, synchronous communication negates “my place and my pace” (Berge, 1999). Soo and Bonk (1998) interviewed eight experienced distance educators and the results showed a predominant preference for the asynchronous mode for all types of interaction. However, researchers expressed concern about the tendency that, in threaded discussion forums, a few members dominate the discussion while the majority are just lurkers (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). A comparative study conducted by Pena-Shaff, Martin, and Gay (2001) showed that asynchronous communication enabled learners to develop critical thinking and in-depth analysis of course content while synchronous communication proved to be useful for encouraging students to brainstorm. In another study comparing the discussions of graduate students in both asynchronous and synchronous discussions, researchers (Davison-Shivers, Muileburg, & Tanner, 2001) found that students in synchronous chat showed greater numbers of responding and reacting statements than in threaded discussions. They also found that the students enjoyed both forms of discussion for different reasons. Therefore, they concluded that the idea that asynchronous communication was more viable may be just the assumption of faculty. They suggested both discussion modes should be used in distance learning but for different purposes.

According to Dillenbourg (1999), collaboration is a situation in which learners interact in a collaborative way and synchronicity is one of the criteria for defining collaborative interactions. However, online learners who are physically distributed probably are not able to meet face-to-face and do things together as they did in traditional group collaboration. In this case, synchronous communication that enables the immediacy of feedback and responses could provide online learners with the opportunity to interact when they collaborate in their group projects. A variety of synchronous communication technologies such as instant messenger, electronic white board, and Web-based realtime audio and video conferencing tools are being used by online instructors and learners. Although effectiveness of technology-supported collaborative learning has been identified, it must be realized that not all learning groups are collaborative and technologies can either facilitate or obstruct collaboration (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Therefore, questions and issues arise with regard to how to use these technologies effectively in order to facilitate online collaboration. Romiszowski and Mason (2004) believed that how to promote effective interaction between groups of students (and instructors) in their collaboration should be one of the considerations for improving the existing online learning environments. This study was designed to investigate how synchronous communication facilitates graduate students’ online project-based collaboration. Research on computer-mediated communication has studied interactions from multiple perspectives, such as types of interaction, levels of interaction, and patterns of interaction (Anderson, 2003; Bannan-Ritland, 2002). This study focused on examining the promotive interaction in students’ online collaboration. Promotive interaction, according to Johnson and Johnson (1989), is one of the five essential elements of collaboration and it occurs when individuals encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts to reach the group’s goals.

This study took place at a large southwestern university in the United States. Participants were 30 students enrolled in a graduate level course on foundations of distance education. Ten of them were male students and 20 female. Twenty-nine of them were located in different states of the United States and one was overseas. They were from different backgrounds, including education, business, government, and healthcare. Twenty-three students had no online learning experience before they took this course.

The course was one of the core courses for an online master’s program in instructional technology. It was totally online and there was no face-to-face meeting during the semester. One objective of the course was for students to explore a variety of communication tools and identify potential uses of the tools for different educational settings. The course was divided into eleven modules and each module required individual projects and/or group projects as part of the assignment. For group projects, students were assigned to work in groups of three based on similar interests or job positions. Each group was given the task of using instant messenger (IM) to share ideas and discuss their group projects. A leader was assigned to each group for each project to facilitate collaboration. The instructor participated in some of the discussions on a random basis. IM discussions were saved and submitted to the instructor as proof of participation. In addition, a group Web site was set up that was restricted to only class members and instructors. Students were required to post their reflections on their readings and class experiences, read postings from other class members and respond to some of them. All messages posted were threaded. Students and the instructors were able to access them anytime during the semester. Besides instant messenger and discussion board, students used e-mails to communicate with each other. The students could reach the instructors either via e-mail or during virtual office hours.

The IM transcripts and messages on the discussion board for week three were gathered for data analysis. This was the first time during the semester that they used IM for their group projects. Each group of students was required to meet synchronously at least once to discuss their group projects. The final product of the project was a written report on distance education planning in a particular setting (e.g., K-12, higher education, or corporate training). Based on this experience, students were also required to post a message on the discussion board of the group Web site, discussing what they liked and/or disliked about using IM in their collaboration. The transcripts and the discussion messages were printed and analyzed.

The focus of the data analysis was to identify evidence of collaborative learning, specifically the promotive interaction in groups of students who collaborated online on their projects. Promotive interaction is created by positive interdependence, which can be identified by eight types of collaborative interactions (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2004). A coding scheme (Table 1) was developed based on these interactions, which were further grouped within five general interaction types: Mutually Constructing Knowledge, Mutually Negotiating, Mutually Supporting, Group Facilitating, and Group Processing.

Two independent coders coded the data by using the coding scheme. They first worked together to read the transcripts and divide each unit of meaning. Then they coded the data independently by identifying each interaction occurring in the transcripts. After the coding was completed, they compared their coding and their disagreement on categorizing interaction was resolved through discussion with the researchers of the study.

Students’ reactions to their use of IM posted on the threaded discussion board were analyzed and the major themes of what they liked and disliked about their collaboration through synchronous communication were summarized.

Result derived from the analysis of promotive interaction in the IM transcripts is shown in Table 2.

The results indicated that the most frequent interaction type in students’ synchronous communication was Mutually Constructing Knowledge (44%), which consists of three collaborative interactions. The other four types of interaction were almost evenly distributed. A Vygotskian perspective on collaborative learning stresses that learning is a process of social construction of shared knowledge (Hogan & Tudge, 1999; Roschelle, 1992; Roschelle & Tearsley, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). Students did not meet online just to split the task, work individually on their own part, and then assemble each individual work into a final project. Instead, there were predominantly many exchanges of resources and information in their discussion (RI). The result also revealed that the students were not hesitant in seeking and receiving help (HA). It is natural that students in the same group have different levels of understanding when their collaboration first starts. The interaction with the more knowledgeable or capable peers helps students obtain common understanding of the problem to be solved. However, it does not mean that the knowledgeable participants should simply give instructions or solutions to the others. Students were actually actively seeking and receiving feedback on their ideas related to their project (FB). It implied that students were willing to open to discussion. Meanwhile, they were “listening” to each other and elaborating. In summary, the synchronous discussion through IM no doubt provided a platform for students’ knowledge co-construction. A student made comments related to the effectiveness of learning through their interaction: “I believe that students can learn and retain information better when they are able to bounce ideas off of one another. Instant communication is better than having to wait for replies because it closely mimics face-to-face conversation.”

In collaborative learning, negotiation is a process by which students attempt to attain agreement on solving problem and they usually negotiate either through mutual refinement or competitive argumentation (Dillenbourg, Baker, & OMalley, 1996). It is noticeable that students preferred using the strategy of mutually influencing (MI) to challenging others (CH). This might be attributed to the fact that these students did not know each other very well at the beginning of the course. Although students in the class had introduced themselves and participated in asynchronous discussions, there was no face-to-face meeting and it was the first time that they had synchronous discussion. They might not feel comfortable challenging each other at their first online meeting. This finding was similar to what Curtis and Lawson (2001) found in their study on collaboration through e-mail discussions.

Although it was students’ first virtual meeting, interestingly they showed support and encouragement to their peers (MS). While appreciating others’ efforts, they expressed their readiness to make contributions. Expression of support and encouragement exchanged between students, according to Palloff and Pratt (1999), is one of the indicators that an online community has been forming. Students in this class actually did feel a sense of community after their online collaboration. A student wrote in his reflection: “This is the first distance education class where synchronous communication took place. I think it added the missing dimension. I never felt part of a community of students in the previous classes. This time I did.”

Students facilitated their discussion by employing interpersonal and group skills (GF). Besides using expressions that encourage group activity and cohesiveness, students frequently used emoticons in IM for better communication. Using text-based communication means that the participants are not able to see each other’s facial expression, which might hinder communication and cause misunderstanding. The emoticons in IM helped students express themselves better. A student said in her reflection, “I enjoyed this type of interaction because I feel like I can let my personality out with the emoticons. I used smiley faces like crazy to show my team members what I’m ‘thinking’ or ‘feeling.’ ”

Group processing (GP) accounts for 15% of all interactions. It seems that students were task-focused in their collaboration. They thought their collaboration through IM was efficient and productive, although it was their first meeting and most of them met more than once to get the project done. A student proudly declared, “Our chat session was extremely productive in a short amount of time. We interpreted the assignment and made several administrative decisions.” When students got off track, group leaders and instructors who participated randomly played an important role in bringing students back on task. Since this was the students’ first live conversation, social interaction was inevitable. Students surprisingly deemed it as an important part in their collaboration. A student suggested that “it would be beneficial for the group members to spend a little time getting to know each other because chat is our only way to form a group dynamic.”

In summary, the results reveal that all of the collaborative interactions in face-to-face situations are identified in students’ synchronous discussion through IM. The behavior of challenging each other’s reasoning was rarely found, because students did not know each other well. All in all, synchronous communication was proven to greatly facilitate students’ online collaboration. With careful design and implementation, IM could be an efficient and productive tool for online project-based collaboration.

Students expressed their likes and dislikes about collaborating through IM in their reflections. The major themes are summarized below, which could be taken into consideration when instructors design and implement synchronous communication in their online teaching:

What students liked about collaborating through IM:

• Ease of use: It is easy and self explanatory. Anyone can use it!

• Real-time communication over distance: I thought it was a great way to communicate. So often in online learning situations, you get stuck in the “email tag” and have to spend extra time waiting around for responses.

• Efficient and productive collaboration: I thought using IM much more productive than emailing and then waiting for responses.

• Learning from each other: I must say that I have learned a great deal from this process.

• Creating a sense of community: I think the IM forum helped created a sense of community among the participants.

What students disliked about collaborating through IM:

• Scheduling: Time zones play into the planning process. Families affect the time. Work affects the time. School affects the time.

• Keeping up with threads of conversation: It’s hard to type fast enough sometimes to reply to a topic before it’s changed by another question or reply.

• Technical difficulty: Using dial-up is a challenge with IM, due to periods of high-volume internet use when the system disconnects you.

The problems that arose in students’ collaboration were due to different reasons. Since students were physically distributed across the country or even overseas and some of them worked full time, it was challenging for three of them to schedule a meeting time. They usually discussed by e-mails and found a time that everybody was available. Some students were completely new to IM and it took them a while to get used to keeping up with the conversation when three persons were “talking.” Some students were still using dial-up Internet connection and it was the major reason that caused technical difficulty. Overall, students enjoyed the experience of collaborating with their peers through IM as they believed “the pros far outweigh the cons.”

It is interesting that this experience had significant impact on some students. They started using IM more often to interact with classmates or integrating IM into their own teaching. Here is what they said about the impact:

This study showed that using IM for synchronous communication was an effective and productive way for online students to collaborate on their group project, given that it was carefully designed and implemented. Based on our experience using synchronous communication in online teaching, the following suggestions are proposed for instructional design when synchronous communication is needed for online teaching:

1. Keep the group size small. There should not be more than three participants in the same group. Otherwise, it would be hard for them to keep up with the conversation, especially for students who do not have good typing skill.

2. Assign a group leader for each project and state what the responsibility is for the leader. A good group leader can initiate the scheduling of online meeting and keep the group members on track during discussion.

3. Have students get to know each other through synchronous communication before they start project collaboration. Although students may introduce themselves through asynchronous discussions, it could be intimidating for some students to meet online with group members for the first time and immediately working together on a task. A meeting for social interaction before collaboration helps new users get used to the synchronous communication tool and start forming a group dynamic.

4. The instructor could participate on a random basis as needed. It is almost impossible that instructors are able to participate in the discussion for all groups and it is unnecessary to do so. However, instructors could facilitate the discussion when students need advice on their collaboration if they are stuck on any issues that they are not able to resolve within the group.

5. Select a synchronous communication tool with emoticons and text-saving feature. Many instant messengers offer these two features and they are free. Students like emoticons because they help them better express themselves because of the absence of facial expression. Saving the text of conversation is useful for students to review the discussion for information needed for their project.

This study revealed that the collaborative interactions in face-to-face situations could be identified in online project-based collaboration among graduate students who used IM for synchronous communication. Students regarded synchronous communication as an efficient and effective way for collaborating on group projects. It was very helpful to create a sense of online learning community among the students. Despite some scheduling and technical issues, it was, overall, a positive experience, which had a significant impact on students’ online learning and their working. Students started to use IM to interact with classmates on a regular basis. More significantly, this experience inspired students to integrate synchronous communication in their own teaching. Based on the findings of this study, five strategies are proposed on how to design and implement synchronous communication for productive collaboration in online teaching.