Achieving collaboration in e-learning

1. Introduction

Introduction

In modern higher education, marked by digitalisation processes and the increasing internationalisation of curricula, collaboration in an online environment is becoming an indispensable element of a student-centred pedagogical approach. Online collaboration is not just a technical organisational dimension of distance learning, but a profound pedagogical issue that concerns the structure of learning, the dynamics of interaction, the development of professional competencies and the building of a sense of belonging to the academic community. The concept of collaborative learning finds its footing in socioconstructivist learning theories, which assume that knowledge is not mechanically transferred from teacher to student, but rather that it is created because of active participation in joint learning, discussion, research and the exchange of perspectives. In an online environment, which can be fundamentally characterised by spatial and emotional distance, it is necessary to constantly encourage and implement collaboration as it fosters a sense of inclusion and motivation.

Development of communication and social skills through collaborative work

Collaborative activities, especially those that involve joint problem-solving, research projects or the production of joint content, provide a natural context for the development of communication and social skills. In such an environment, students are confronted with different perspectives and approaches, learn to listen actively, present their own points of view with arguments, make consensus-based decisions and manage complex interpersonal dynamics. Through such processes, the competencies of emotional intelligence, tolerance, assertiveness and collaborative conflict management are also developed. All of these are competencies that are equally important for success in formal education as well as in a professional environment. In a digital environment, the development of these skills is often even more challenging due to the specifics of communication mediated by technology. This is precisely why it is necessary for teachers to design structured frameworks for cooperation, and set clear rules and assessment criteria in order to foster a culture of dialogue, respect and shared learning.

2. Social teaching forms

Social teaching forms are organisational forms of relations between teachers and students, but also among students during learning and teaching. This defines the division of social activities among participants, as Pranjić* states, whether a student works alone, with someone from the same bench or the same seminar group, and what their relationship is with the activities of the rest of the group. Therefore, we can discern between:

• individual learning
• partner learning
• group learning
• classroom learning — frontal teaching without real collaboration (which we will not explain below).

Individual learning involves tasks that students complete independently, without direct guidance from teachers or peers. They are usually time-limited and focused on applying what has been learned, practicing and making their own contribution to solving a question or problem.

The advantages of individual learning are that the student is active and independent, learns by discovery, differences in pace and learning style are respected, progress can be clearly monitored, teaching methods are diversified and it is nominally less burdensome for the teacher. The disadvantages are limited or absent social relationships during learning.

Partner learning (learning in pairs) involves two students working together on a short and equal basis to solve a task. The most suitable tasks are exercises, knowledge tests and research with appropriate aids.

The advantages of partner learning are the increased activity and independence of the student, less pressure related to formal classes, the development of self-relationship and social skills. Disadvantages are the possible dominance of one of the students and the establishment of roles.

Group learning involves 3 to 5 students working together through three phases: preparation, task execution and summarisation of results. Clear didactic procedures are needed: in agreement with the teacher, the group decides whether everyone works on the same task, on parts of a more complex task or on different tasks.

The advantages of such an approach are cooperative and productive work, encouraging cooperation, tolerance, respect for rules and communication skills, and recognising different learning styles within the group.

Disadvantages include the possible dominance of an individual or the division of roles turning into the acceptance of the most favoured function, the risk of turning social goals into their opposite (prejudice, rejection of others, their exclusion, etc.)

* Pranjić, Marko. Teaching Methodology in Words and Pictures. Zagreb: Croatian Studies, University of Zagreb, 2013

3. Importance and forms of cooperation

Collaboration in e-learning is not just an addition to teaching, but a fundamental mechanism for building knowledge, motivation and professional competences. In digital environments, learning is less linear and individual, and more networked and shared: students exchange ideas, question arguments, assume roles and jointly create digital objects such as documents, presentations, code and multimedia.

This activates the principles of social constructivism and shared learning regulation, which increases the depth of content processing and long-term retention of knowledge. For teachers, collaboration opens space for formative assessment on the fly, as traces of interactions such as forums, comments and change history become a source of insight into the process, not just the final product.

Forms of collaboration range from short ad hoc activities such as think-pair-share in a virtual classroom, to structured group tasks such as e-portfolio projects, to long-term communities of practice that extend beyond a single course. It is useful to distinguish between coordination, i.e., the agreement of deadlines and work allocation, cooperation, i.e., the division of labor with partial results, and collaboration, which is the joint creation of a single outcome with mutual dependence. In the e-environment, this level is supported by specialised tools: kanban boards for coordination, shared documents and collaborative repositories, and synchronous discussions and joint modeling on digital whiteboards and collaborative tools.

Clearly defined roles, such as group leader, note-taker, quality assurance and communication coordinator, encourage accountability and visibility of contributions with transparent assessment criteria, with rubrics that measure both the result and the process of creation. The design of the activities should ensure interest and stimulation through open-ended tasks without a single solution, but also a safe climate that includes rules of online etiquette, moderation and support. At the curriculum level, collaboration is planned vertically, through the gradual increase in the complexity of group tasks throughout the semester, and horizontally, by connecting subjects through interdisciplinary themes. In this way, learning (remains) authentic: students work on practical problems, agree on quality standards and deliver results for real users.

Examples

Peer evaluation in LMS

Students submit seminar drafts through the LMS, for example in the Moodle LMS Workshop activity. The system can automatically assign, for example, three anonymous papers from their colleagues to each student to assess using the criteria arranged in rubrics. After the activity, there is a discussion in a separate forum activity where authors revise their papers according to the feedback received and submit a final version with reflection on the changes based on the feedback. Students must provide at least one piece of evidence/claim from the text for each grade they gave to a criterion and suggest a specific step for improvement, such as replacing or changing arguments or making stronger connections to relevant sources. In the rubric, the criteria are grouped according to content, structure, style and academic integrity. The teacher moderates and resolves isolated cases of inconsistent grades through meta-review. Finally, the teacher creates a short meta-summary explaining which types of interventions improved the papers/seminars the most and what is recommended for the next generation of students.

Community of practice

For the needs of their e-course, the teacher opens a private space in the Teams or Slack environment with channels by topic and clear rules of conduct. During the semester, students share articles, ask questions from practice, and once a month organise short webinars for their colleagues in which they demonstrate digital tools and useful procedures or skills. A rotating role of channel moderator is introduced, who summarises discussions weekly and archives them in the Wiki activity on the e-course located on the Moodle LMS. The activity of individual students is measured by the following metrics: the number of meaningful contributions, usefulness according to the votes of colleagues and the impact on the creation of final digital objects (presentations, projects, documentation, etc.). At the end of the semester, the community of practice publishes an online guide with links, summaries and examples of application, which the teacher then uses as teaching material for the next generations.

4. Development of communication and social skills through group work

Group work in e-learning systematically develops the so-called soft skills: active listening, clear written and oral expression, giving and receiving feedback, assertiveness, negotiation and conflict management. Since digital channels filter out some of the non-verbal signals, the skills of explicit articulation and metacommunication become especially important, so it is necessary to agree on communication rules such as responses within a certain number of hours and emergency channels, the use of structured feedback forms and the valuable habit of summarising and sharing notes after each meeting.

Meetings using videoconferencing tools allow for practice of short, clear presentations and facilitate discussion through asking questions, paraphrasing and linking members' contributions. Asynchronous channels such as forums and document comments encourage practice of argumentation and a writing style adapted to the audience.

Group roles serve as training positions for specific skills. Systematically introducing rubrics for communication, such as criteria for active listening, substantiating claims with sources and encouraging others, makes expectations transparent and known in advance.

Additionally, digital traces of student group activities such as recordings, transcripts and comment history, and changes to shared documents, allow for self-assessment and shared evaluation of communication. Practicing netiquette, taking care of accessibility through subtitles or preparing materials with increased contrast (and thus readability for students with disabilities), and clear message structures foster both professionalism and humanity in the digital environment.

Examples

Feedback workshop 

At the beginning of the semester, the groups undergo a short training session using a videoconferencing tool chosen by the teacher and practice giving feedback (e.g. in SBI form) through role playing. The session ends with micro-exercises of giving feedback on short video presentations of colleagues with a joint reflection on tone and clarity. The training is structured in three steps: demonstration by example, guided exercise in small groups and application to your own work. Each trainee receives a checklist that includes checking the concreteness of the feedback, the balance of the positive and corrective part, and a suggestion for the next step. The meeting is recorded for self-assessment, and wording that encourages collaboration is extracted from the transcript, for example questions that open possibilities instead of closing the discussion. At the end, a common language and tags to be used in the comments in the documents are agreed on, so that the feedback is transparent and consistent throughout the semester.

Argumentation forum

Every week, students conduct a structured discussion in the e-course forum activity. Post A contains a thesis and at least two sources, post B is a constructive response with a summary and one new source, and post C is a summary of that discussion with a proposal for further necessary steps for the group. Moderators (students) rotate every week. The moderator of the week opens the topic with a clear framework and a reminder of the citation rules. The rubric scores the relevance of the source, clarity of the argument, connection to previous discussions, and proposed action. To avoid repetition, before posting, the system requires the author to include a sentence referring to at least one previous post. Every 14 days, the discussion texts are exported and transferred to a shared document on Google Docs and jointly commented on and further edited for use as an example for future generations.

5. Advantages and disadvantages of group work (online and in person)

Group work can have synergistic effects: deeper understanding through explaining to others, sharing of cognitive load and development of professional skills (of course, all of this is possible under optimal conditions). The online environment enhances some of these advantages: flexibility of time and place, the possibility of involving external experts, and permanent visibility of the process and history of decision-making. The live classroom offers rich nonverbal context, spontaneous interaction, and rapid regulation of dynamics.

However, there are also challenges. Online groups often suffer from social slack, mismatched schedules, and technical issues. The lack of spontaneous signals can make it difficult to detect misunderstandings or tensions. In live teaching, the risk is the dominance of louder members, difficult process documentation and limited access to remote resources. Hybrid groups introduce an additional asymmetry: members in the hall sometimes have an advantage in mutual respect, while colleagues who access online remain on a kind of digital edge.

Mitigation strategies include collaborative contracts with defined roles, deadlines and channels; rubrics with criteria that separately evaluate the process such as communication, reliability and initiative; and the output of the work; the use of peer review; the use of tools to track contributions such as change history, kanban boards, and activity logs; and the practice of checking in with each other at the beginning and end of the week. The optimal group size is often 3 to 5 members, which provides sufficient diversity with high individual accountability.

When choosing an online or live format, the principle of purpose always applies, i.e. for what purpose we want to use one or the other. Complex brainstorming and negotiation tasks use synchronous communication, while analytical and production steps benefit from asynchronous, focused, real-time work. If possible, use a two-pronged approach, i.e. a combination of both methods: asynchronous preparation and synchronous consolidation, in order to consider different scheduling preferences (especially for students studying double majors). Special attention should be paid to accessibility and digital inclusion, so transcripts, clear instructions and alternative channels should be provided for those with weaker equipment or connection, cognitive difficulties and the like.

Examples

Cooperation Agreement

Within the group, at the beginning, it is necessary to define roles, expected weekly engagement, channels for communication and rules for resolving disagreements. A document describing this should be available in a common space (on the front page of the e-college or on Google Docs and should be periodically revised. The contract can include the deadline required for a response, the standard for the names of the files and folders in which they are stored, which digital tools will be used, the form of the record (if it is kept) and the decision-making protocol. At the end of each cycle/phase of work, the group briefly evaluates compliance with the contract and suggests changes to be made in the next version of the document.

Contribution records

For the written report, the group works in a joint collaborative document with mandatory commenting and clear marking of paragraphs. The teacher makes sure the criterion of transparency of contributions is included in the rubric, and asks each member to add a summary of their work and links to relevant changes and comments. A table of contributions with the date, short description and status mark is kept with the document, and for more complex projects, a repository can also be used. Group members are required to add a meaningful description of the changes they made so that it is later clear what was done and why. At the end of the work, a report is generated with a graphical representation of contributions by person and type of work, and deviations can be discussed in a short meeting focused on learning and support.

6. Synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration methods

Synchronous (video meetings, virtual classrooms) versus asynchronous (forums, shared documents) collaboration methods 

Synchronous methods allow for temporal concurrency, rapid exchange, collaborative modeling and decision-making. These are typically sessions using videoconferencing tools with split screens, presentations, polls, breakout rooms and digital whiteboards. Good preparation is key: a clear goal, a timeline and pre-shared materials, as well as moderation rules such as raising hands, chatting for questions and recording with consent.

Asynchronous methods allow time for reflection, allow students with different schedules to participate and create a kind of permanent knowledge base. Forums and commented documents are suitable for structured argumentation, while shared task boards and repositories help organise the workflow. Clear expectations are important for an asynchronous environment: a cadence of postings, such as two fact-based posts per week, quality standards such as citing sources and summarising before a new contribution, and moderation that encourages connection and quality of discussions.

Activities are often designed by combining both approaches. Asynchronous work is used for preparation, for example data collection and individual analysis, synchronous teaching is used for integration, for example discussion, decision-making and planning, and then asynchronously follows production and documentation. When choosing digital tools, consider data protection (especially GDPR), accessibility and digital literacy of participants, and support for learning traces such as logs and versioning. Finally, avoid cognitive overload: it is better to have a few clear channels with an agreed purpose than a multitude of scattered platforms that may also require opening new user accounts for each of them.

Examples

Flipped classroom and synchronous consolidation

Students first watch short video lectures asynchronously and solve a quiz with feedback. Then, in the synchronous online class, case studies are done in the so-called breakout rooms of the videoconferencing tool, and the final part serves to consolidate conclusions and define tasks. In preparation, students are asked to provide a mini-summary and one question for discussion, which increases the quality of participation. During the synchronous class, the assistant monitors the chat and notes on the digital whiteboard of the videoconferencing tool, while each group submits a screenshot with the solution and a short explanation. After the class, students asynchronously enter conclusions into a shared wiki activity in the Moodle LMS and link them to references, and the mentor adds comments and questions for deeper reflection. This prevents decisions from being lost and ensures continuity of work in the following week.

Asynchronous wiki documentation

The group edits a shared wiki activity in the Moodle LMS with rules, decisions, forms and so-called post mortem analyses. Each week, one member is an editor who edits the structure and ensures that forum discussions are translated into up-to-date wiki pages. Templates for typical pages are introduced, such as decision minutes, good practice guides and frequently asked questions. Editing rules include short paragraphs, internal links and sources. Once a month, outdated pages are reviewed and archive tags are added. The wiki activity also serves as a source / teaching material for exams and final projects, so students have a motivation to edit it accurately and clearly, which builds the institutional memory of the e-course in the long term.

7. Connecting different forms of work and e-learning approaches

8. How project-based learning, inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning foster collaboration

Contemporary approaches such as project-based learning, inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning naturally create conditions for collaboration because they require different perspectives, planning, iteration and shared accountability. Projects produce real products for real or simulated clients, inquiry-based learning requires asking questions, collecting and interpreting data, and problem-based learning begins with an authentic problem without a pre-determined solution. In all three cases, groups negotiate approaches, divide tasks according to strengths, maintain momentum and integrate results into a whole.

Key elements are a clear definition of outcomes and criteria with rubrics, role mapping, short status meetings and mandatory process documents such as a research plan, decision log and reflection journal. In a digital environment, it is important to provide tools for collaborative modeling, versioning and peer review, and to integrate external stakeholders through guest sessions or short prototype evaluations.

Evaluation should combine the assessment of products, the quality of solutions, and the process, i.e. collaboration, professionalism and learning. Peer evaluation with calibration and anonymity increases the fairness of such a process, and reflective essays ensure the visibility of individual learning. These approaches encourage learning through one's own contribution: students gain a sense of meaning because their work has users and consequences, which strengthens motivation and responsibility.

9. Reflection and metacognition in a group context

Reflection and metacognition turn activities into ongoing learning. In a group context, they allow students to notice patterns in their own collaboration: what moved the group forward, where energy was wasted, how decisions are made, and how disagreements are managed. Metacognitive prompts focus attention on planning through questions such as "What do we know now and what do we lack?", monitoring through questions such as "Where is our discussion going and is it on target?" and evaluation through questions like "What would we do differently next time and why?".

Operationalisation includes personal and group tools: individual diary entries after each major step, group retrospectives with categories of what went well and what needs to be improved, a decision log with short explanations and process metrics such as balance of time spent, average response time and number of locked tasks per cycle. Evaluation of reflection can be conducted using rubric with criteria such as depth of insight, connection to evidence and planned steps, with the emphasis remaining on development rather than punishment.

Digital tools provide transcripts and automatic summaries that serve as a starting point for reflection, but human facilitation is essential. What is needed are stimulating questions, normalising uncertainty and directing the discussion towards learning, not blame. A culture of interpersonal respect and safety, in which it is permissible to admit a mistake and change one's mind, is a condition for honest and useful reflection and work, and therefore we should use all the possibilities of digital tools that allow us to do so, and try to suppress most of their possibilities that can be used for mere surveillance devoid of pedagogical purpose.

10. Conclusion

Collaboration in e-learning is most effective when it is pedagogically driven and organised in a way that leverages digital tools to implement and enrich that collaboration. From a teacher’s perspective, the foundation are clear outcomes, transparent student roles and criteria, a thoughtful mix of synchronous and asynchronous activities, and a pre-prepared support/work framework. Collaboration contracts, rubrics, kanban boards and visible learning traces enable fair assessment and timely intervention. The integration of multiple learning models, from flipped classroom to PBL, PjBL and IBL, creates a rhythm that maintains motivation and ensures knowledge transfer through authentic tasks and activities.

From a student's perspective, collaboration brings an opportunity to take responsibility, develop communication and social skills, and create quality work results that can have real users. Clear rules, respect for different work styles and accessibility of resources increase engagement and a sense of fairness.

Continuous reflection and the digital tools that support and document it helps the group to learn from the process and constantly improve the way it works. When goals, methods and evidence of learning are aligned, collaboration becomes a driver of deep, relevant and sustainable learning.

11. Literature

• Center for e-learning support FFZG. Moodle activity Workshop
• Letina, A. i Vasilj, M. (2021). Challenges of implementing collaborative learning in initial teacher education. Školski vjesnik, 70 (1), 343-369.