Achieving collaboration in e-learning

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.