Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This qualitative study investigates learners’ experiences in online international collaborative environments using both asynchronous and synchronous communication methods. Specifically, it focuses on the rewards, shortcomings, and difficulties learners encountered through posing critical questions about the nature of collaboration forms. Eight graduate interview participants completed two separate instructional technology courses, and an interpretive qualitative approach was used to deepen the understanding of the interview responses. The findings suggest a few key themes, primarily positive in nature, about the use of online international collaboration tools. While asynchronous communication platforms help to enhance, enrich, and expand course content, media-rich synchronous communication platforms allow learners to have a more significant sense of social presence, encouraging them to be more actively engaged in the learning environment. Synchronous communication platforms also help to enhance intercultural understanding and develop non-verbal communication skills. In addition to commentary about communication platforms, the participants expressed immense satisfaction with learning various skills (i.e., research and interpersonal skills, project planning, and digital literacy) in the international collaboration projects. Despite their success, the participants did encounter several challenges, most notably the incompatibility of their respective academic calendars. This is perhaps the most ubiquitous obstacle in the collegiate online collaborative learning environment.

Keywords

international collaboration communication methods online learning social presence culture

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic, and its accompanied transition of education to nearly exclusive online formats, has highlighted the urgent need of educators to increase their capacity to facilitate and understand online learning environments. Unfortunately, the extant literature suggests educators may be lacking in terms of structured understanding of such environments. For example, a meta-analysis by Camargo et al. (2020) found that although COVID-19 required a quick transition to online learning in many areas of the world, only seven articles could be retrieved which were able to directly assess educational structure during the pandemic. Salas-Pilco et al. (2022) found that the COVID-19 pandemic illuminated severe issues with online learning distribution (e.g., connectivity issues, lack of instructor training, lack of student’s sense of social connection to classmates) but suggested great promise in the capacity for online learning to significantly alter higher education, for the better, in a post-pandemic world. Concerns about our preparedness for online learning mirror concerns cited in work prior to the pandemic (see Mayer, 2019), suggesting that the pandemic merely highlighted issues which were clearly already present. Therefore, although educators continue to grapple with the challenges presented by new classroom technology and how to maintain a virtual space conducive to learning, development is needed in certain areas. One such area is that of research on online collaborative spaces. Online collaborative spaces provide substantial benefits to learning, including academic, social, and psychological benefits. For example, when sufficient levels of interaction and support are provided, online collaborative learning has been shown to elicit learning outcomes similar to that of face-to-face classes (Hanze & Berger, 2007), and is capable of producing positive interaction through the satisfaction of a sense of social presence in online forums (Shonfeld & Gibson, 2019). Despite these benefits, online collaborative learning is not frequently used in higher education (Graham & Misanchuk, 2004). Given the lack of use, it is, therefore, critical to connect knowledgeable scholars to share best practices for addressing these challenges.

Problem Statement

As noted previously, there is a current need for understanding the impact of online collaborative learning spaces on learning outcomes, as well as learning-adjacent outcomes. In terms of general learning outcomes, students who feel supported and engaged tend to have higher satisfaction with online courses and tend to have better learning outcomes than those who feel relatively disengaged, a finding consistent with effects displayed in face-to-face courses (S. J. Lee et al., 2011). In terms of learning-adjacent outcomes, certain aspects of the literature suggest that other supporting effects in online learning can help to supplement learning outcomes. For example, one such outcome mentioned previously is that of social presence. Many students feel socially disconnected during online interactions, so it is essential to instill a sense of social presence within online workers (see Cobb, 2009)—one commonly-used approach is that of online discussion groups to make learners feel more connected (see Akcaoglu & Lee, 2016). Another adjacent benefit is that of improved cultural competency. Research has suggested that cultural competency, the ability to connect with and understand a diverse range of populations, can be improved when online delivery systems are designed to bring those from different cultures closer together (Soper & Ukot, 2016). Finally, in terms of peer interactions, research suggests that peer support benefits learners in online forums as it helps them to effectively navigate the course structure and provides a useful secondary tool to succeed in the course (Azhari et al., 2022).

In order to effectively access these benefits of online learning, it is critical to understand the two forms of communication in collaborative settings: asynchronous and synchronous, each with their own respective educational strategies (Kim & Ketenci, 2019; Moorhouse & Wong, 2022). Benefits and drawbacks of each of these methods will be discussed further below, but a clear gap in the literature exists which relates to the problem statement of this article. More specifically, research which compares the benefits (and drawbacks) of these two types of learning within a single sample currently provides an inconsistent picture of potential effects—certain research finds greater support for the use of asynchronous learning while others find it is rejected by learners (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2003; Karkar-Esperat, 2018), while separate concerns are often raised in synchronous learning forums. As higher education institutions are well positioned to use their resources to enhance communication and collaboration in different parts of the world (H. Lee et al., 2022), the current research more effectively describes learners’ experiences in synchronous and asynchronous online international collaborative environments through the use of formal interviews, in order to more comprehensively summarize the impact asynchronous and synchronous course aspects contribute to learner’s experiences in online courses.

Related Literature

Advanced communication technology has been evolving and thereby enriching online learning communities for decades (Alanazi et al., 2020; Holmberg et al., 2005; Turnbull et al., 2021; Salta et al., 2022). Such technology has been valuable over the years for allowing researchers to deepen their collective understanding of online learning spaces. Using online collaboration, educators are able to seek out the international education community and develop a wider range of techniques and methods for creating advantageous learning settings. The following sections will introduce prior research on both asynchronous and synchronous learning, as well as how such settings create unique opportunities and challenges for instructional techniques and design.

Commonly Used Communication Methods and Their Importance

Asynchronous Distance Learning

Asynchronous distance learning is defined as communication between two or more communicators via media at different times for both online partners and is an effective and popular method of distance education (Holmberg et al., 2005; Shandra & Chystiakova, 2021). As noted by Varkey et al. (2023), asynchronous learning is most effectively structured when it incorporates discussion forums, timely formative assessments (to ensure students are on the right “path” toward overall learning), and a wide range of multimedia tools (e.g., videos, PowerPoints). Benefits of asynchronous communication may include the convenience of time and place, the opportunity for creating a more equitable learning space, and an opportunity for learners to reflect on course content (Ellis, 2001; Mercimek & Çaka, 2022). Research has also suggested that asynchronous learning may be beneficial for EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students, who may be traversing the added difficulty of a language barrier (Basri et al., 2021), as well as for distance learning students, who appear to show better learning outcomes in some cases than those in face-to-face courses (Bernard et al., 2004). Asynchronous learning is not, however, without its drawbacks. One drawback, titled as “information overload” (Mackay, 1988), refers to the vast amounts of information electronic access can provide to learners which may overwhelm individuals in their learning environment—this drawback has been discussed as an increasingly pertinent issue as electronic resources continue to expand (Shrivastav & Hiltz, 2013), and has been cited as a primary obstacle for the use of multimedia common to asynchronous work (Daniela, 2021). Asynchronous communication also does not allow for immediate interaction or feedback as is found in synchronous settings (Entezarjou et al., 2020; Shoemaker & Van Stam, 2010), and can create difficulties in regard to the beneficial sense of belonging with one’s peers in online courses, a term labeled “social presence” in prior research (Licona & Gurung, 2013; Picciano, 2002; Whitty, 2016). This lack of social presence has been shown in prior work, and helps to explain certain deficits asynchronous courses have in terms of perceived learning and class enjoyment (see Ratan et al., 2022). Overall, while there are benefits found in the asynchronous setting, academics will find several challenges to overcome as well.

Synchronous Distance Learning

Synchronous distance learning occurs when two or more communication partners in different locations interact with each other at the same time. Benefits of synchronous learning include the immediacy of instructional feedback, a greater sense of multiple perspectives during discussion, and more meaningful interaction between classmates (Park & Bonk, 2007). However, the most common characteristic of such learning spaces is that interactions involve immediate feedback, enhancing users’ critical sense of social presence. While the importance of social presence may seem trivial to some, it has been linked with a myriad of positive outcomes in prior research (Hollebeek et al., 2021; Oh et al., 2018; Zou et al. 2021), including general knowledge outcomes (Hostetter, 2013), course satisfaction (Richardson et al., 2017), and final grades (Liu et al., 2009). However, as with asynchronous learning, there are several shortcomings to synchronous learning environments with the most encountered obstacle being the scheduling of real time communication between time zones (Heshmat et al., 2020; Manning et al., 2015), an obstacle which is exacerbated if internet connection is poor (Shoemaker & Van Stam, 2010; Vutborg et al., 2011). However, it has been shown that success in synchronous courses is not as strongly related to technological functionality when studies incorporate analyses of the human components found in courses (Warden et al., 2015). Overall, lack of synchronization still does seem to make it difficult to find a convenient time for both communication partners to meet one another (Nieuwoudt, 2020).

One major goal of both synchronous and asynchronous settings is to achieve a sufficient level of collaboration between communication partners. Salmons (2008) defines collaboration as “constructing knowledge, negotiating meanings, and/or solving problems through mutual engagement of two or more learners in a coordinated effort using Internet and electronic communications” (p. 2). For online educators, creating collaborative environments is hinged upon understanding students’ experiences in the online setting, in order to accommodate their instructional unique needs, help them to develop their skills more effectively, and ultimately, to assist students in meeting instructional goals (Alanazi, 2016).

Collaboration in synchronous settings has received significant focus in prior work. For example, Sobko et al. (2020) found that online synchronous collaboration, structured as a collaboration conducted via Zoom meetings to discuss course content, helped to facilitate knowledge construction, and understanding of course material, while Iyer and Chapman (2021) found that synchronous components helped to reduce transactional distance and overall course perception in Information Science courses. In terms of asynchronous learning, collaboration is most commonly achieved through separate examination of course content, often described as the “split up work” approach to collaboration. In some of this research, it has been shown to be effective in instilling collaboration when course prompts are designed to target interaction (e.g., asking participants to respond to a discussion in a way which targets the exchange of information; Yoon et al., 2020). Other research has provided contrasting evidence, suggesting that unstructured asynchronous course components have little impact on academic motivation, despite showing moderate relationships with objective learning outcomes (Radkowitsch et al., 2020). Differences between synchronous and asynchronous learning may be partially explained by differences in how instructors seek out student acceptance of the formats. Synchronous learning acceptance is influenced by technological innovations and quality of the learning system, while asynchronous learning acceptance is influenced by organizational and technical support, technological innovations—however, both forms of acceptance are strongly influenced by the characteristics of the teachers (Persada et al., 2022). Perhaps unifying the aforementioned fields, some research has also shown that asynchronous collaboration is most effective when coupled with synchronous forums, such as in the case of oral learning skills in EFL classes (see Fischer & Yang, 2022), or in the learning outcomes for math students during the COVID lockdowns (Calder et al., 2021).

Education researchers have cited the importance of incorporating online tools into learning spaces (see Shachaf, 2008), as many feel this can enhance one’s knowledge and adaptability in a range of educational situations (McCosker et al. 2021; Potdevin et al., 2018). Unfortunately, communicating face-to-face (F2F) is not necessarily the best way to communicate online for all students—for example, research suggests that while some international students cite feeling more isolation during asynchronous learning, others actually prefer it to F2F work (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2003; Karkar-Esperat, 2018). Given this variability in experiences, it is important to further explore how learners engage with synchronous and asynchronous online settings.

Synchronous/Asynchronous Learning and Developing Cultural Awareness

In addition to the cognitive and social aspects explored, prior research has also suggested that the aforementioned learning types may help to facilitate cultural awareness, opening student’s minds to other points of view (Aguilar & Pifarre Turmo, 2019; Etcuban & Pantinople, 2018). For example, Chang (2016) found that EFL students were able to develop higher levels of cultural awareness when partaking in a cross-cultural program that utilized both synchronous and asynchronous methods. Vahed and Levine (2019) found that dental students were able to develop cultural and diversity competence through an online collaboration program connecting students from South Africa and New York. Finally, in an experiment with undergraduate students from Japan, results showed development of intercultural communication skills in an assisted telecommunication program (Ismailov, 2021). While this prior work suggests that cultural awareness may be an additional benefit of the synchronous and asynchronous learning approaches to collaboration, it is currently unclear if either synchronous or asynchronous methods may best facilitate cultural awareness, a gap in the literature the researcher sought to address in the current research.

Purpose of Study

Overall, there is a vast body of research on synchronous and asynchronous learning, respectively. For example, asynchronous forums have been shown to provide various benefits for student outcomes, such as the capacity to independently develop understanding of course content and think more carefully about constructing responses in discussion forums (Holmberg et al., 2005; Shandra & Chystiakova, 2021; Varkey et al., 2023) while synchronous forums are well-known for their benefits in inducing social presence online (Hollebeek et al., 2021; Oh et al., 2018; Zou et al. 2021). However, real-world settings often involve a balance of synchronous and asynchronous components. For example, distance learning courses may involve asynchronous sharing of completed documents for group projects, as well as synchronous Zoom meetings for coordinating tasks and discussion. To this end, it is critical to understand and compare the impact these two types of delivery will have on various outcomes. While limited, this type of research has been somewhat inconclusive. For example, Kunin et al. (2014) found that while dental students felt asynchronous learning supported content clarity and learning effectiveness, synchronous learning was most effective for fostering connection between peers. In contrast, Libasin et al. (2021) found that synchronous learning led to a higher level of academic achievement than asynchronous learning, consistent with some prior work done in a sample of accounting students (Duncan et al., 2012). Finally, Emmanouilidou et al. (2012) found that both synchronous and asynchronous approaches led to equal amounts of cognitive understanding in a sample of physical educators. This research highlights a clear need for further work which seeks to understand the experiences of learners in synchronous and synchronous online settings, as well as the types of benefits, both cognitive and social, each approach may have for learners.

Finally, it is important to understand synchronous and asynchronous learning in international collaboration environments. International collaboration, in general, poses difficulties in terms of collaboration, involving the coordination of courses, potential language barriers, and other course-related concerns. However, research on international collaboration has suggested that such collaboration is possible in asynchronous formats using the student-led discussion approach (Larisa, 2021), although student and teacher motivation may be the primary force which drives success in these contexts (Whatley et al., 2008). The literature also suggests success in the format of synchronous learning, using virtual environments to establish rapport and social presence amongst learners (Lajoie et al., 2006), such as through the use of team-teaching approaches (Manganello et al., 2009). Synchronous approaches have been demonstrated as effective in, for example, the success of international collaborative environments for establishing cross-cultural competency in nursing students (see Woodley et al., 2023) and for learning medical knowledge across disciplines over three continents (see Desai et al., 2021).

Despite these findings, a study which examines the simultaneous impact of synchronous and asynchronous components on students in international collaboration has yet to be conducted.

Given the prior research, access to a specific setting where one can investigate the nature of the online collaborative process via synchronous and asynchronous methods is warranted. Fortunately, such settings are available to utilize as a research tool. In the case of the current research, these themes were explored in a collaborative online education program found at a large research institution in the United States, which coordinated collaboration between the institution and a higher education institution in Costa Rica. The primary methods used involve educational technology tools and educational strategies employed via the pairing of students from the two institutions to collaborate on academic projects and present their findings at the end of the course. Both graduate and undergraduate students are involved in the collaborative project and are able to provide insight as to their experiences.

Research Design and Method

The current study takes a qualitative approach to the topics of interest. More specially, an interviewing method was utilized, one of the primary three methods commonly used for data collection and analysis in qualitative research are (Maxwell, 2013). Interviewing is a particularly efficient method when analyzed using the interpretive approach, which intends to make sense of qualitative experiences of participants by seeking commonalities between interview content (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Gill & Baillie, 2018). Another advantage of interviewing as a research design is that the researcher can ask immediate follow-up questions as warranted—the researcher cannot do so with other data collection methods. The current exploratory study capitalized on these benefits to deepen our understanding of the individual components of online international collaboration. More specifically, we sought to examine the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: To what extent do participants indicate cognitive and social benefits of synchronous and asynchronous learning, such as the experience of social presence and development of learning outcomes?

RQ2: To what extent do participants indicate significant barriers to collaboration using synchronous and asynchronous methods, such as timing/scheduling conflicts, social disconnect, and technical difficulties?

RQ3: Did participants develop cultural awareness in the online collaboration forum, and is this primarily in synchronous or asynchronous settings?

Participants

The participants in this study were eight graduate students who had taken two advanced instructional technology courses. Both courses had team project components that required students at the United States and Costa Rican institution to collaborate online, the topics of online collaboration varied between educational strategies to lifestyle choices. The researcher interviewed students who collaborated in the fall, spring, and summer semester to deepen understanding of the dynamic circumstances of the time and scheduling differences. Then, the researcher contacted the U.S. graduate students by email for interview. Table 1 below briefly summarizes the sample (pseudonyms are used):

Table 1.

Description of Participants.

Name	Occupation	Citizenship	Program
Mary	Culinary Teacher	United States	Doctoral
Christopher	Graduate Student—Foreign Language Ed.	United States	Masters
Daniel	Educational Technology Lecturer	Costa Rica	Doctoral
Jennifer	Nurse and Biology GTA	United States	Doctoral
David	Public School Teacher	United States	Doctoral
William	Apple Technician and Trainer	United States	Masters
Isabel	Student Services Advisor	Colombia	Masters
Erica	Employee	United States	Masters

Data Collection

Upon completing the final projects of two instructional technology courses, the researcher conducted approximately 40-minute semi-structured interviews with U.S. students who collaborated online with their peers from Costa Rica and had agreed to participate in the study. The interview questions were designed to prompt the interviewees about their experience in online international collaboration which were recorded and then transcribed for data analysis.

Compliance With Ethical Standards

All participants completed an informed consent document prior to completing the interviews. This study complied with ethical standards for human subjects research as set out by the American Psychological Association (APA). There were no conflicts of interest in the current research.

Analytic Approach

The interviews were analyzed and coded via a line-by-line approach (Deterding & Waters, 2021; Gibbs, 2008). Most interviews were coded with open coding techniques to identify the main concepts and categories of the transcriptions. Axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Scott et al., 2021) was developed to find out how the open codes were related to other concepts. During the coding process, the researchers read in-depth to understand meanings behind the interviewees’ answers to discover themes (Blaikie, 2018; Ryan & Bernard, 2003). In order to ensure an unbiased approach to interviews, the researcher chose to follow the technique of adequate engagement in data collection while striving to maintain the highest degree of professional research standards, intending to control for any biases the researcher may hold individually (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Mohajan, 2018). Throughout analyses, the author grouped similar data together by repeatedly listening to audio recordings, ensuring that these data were associated with the appropriate themes.

Results

The graduate students interviewed in this study provided several explanations as to why they were interested in collaborating both asynchronously and synchronously. From the data analyses, we can see that several axial codes have emerged to create general themes. The themes that emerged from interviewing the eight collaborators are namely: (1) negotiating helpful interaction patterns; (2) accommodating cultural and linguistic differences; (3) learning the “tools” of online collaboration; and (4) addressing remaining challenges.

Negotiating Helpful Interaction Patterns

This theme involved the capacity for the collaborative spaces to allow for helpful interaction between partners—this included a more collaborative understanding of course content, being able to create a balanced system of power between interaction partners, and being able to pursue higher social presence. Chiu et al. (2021) indicates that online environments require users to have the abilities to socialize when interacting with others by using technology. It is no surprise that younger generations who grew up with social media as a constant in their lives would want a user-friendly tool to help them to communicate with others, but it was reassuring to see that older students preferred this opportunity, too.

Reflection on Knowledge

Students expressed how asynchronous collaboration allows them to read, think, synthesize, and reflect by responding to others’ participation. One of the students stated that, “[…] it feels like when you type, when you text, and you email, you have time to reflect and think about how you are gonna [sic] respond” (Mary). Communicating at different times afforded students the opportunity to respond with enriched knowledge. Another student was very content with collaborating at different times stating:

… if they say we think we should change these questions, for example, you have the time to think about it, not just an immediate response. You can think about it, analyze it, you can discuss it with the people you have next to you and then you can say yeah, okay or not. (Daniel)

Another graduate student stated:

Collaborating at the same times would have given time to work on the projects and enter what was determined to be added to our content, review their content, ask questions when we would either asynchronous and synchronous communicate. (Jennifer)

Giving students enough time to read and reflect made them content with that form of communication. On the other hand, in synchronous communication, students could negotiate meaning and clarify ideas, but they were not given enough time to think and reflect on what they read or heard. One respondent stated, “We could build on each other rather than the content, and there is not really time to reflect.” Therefore, students indicated that synchronous collaboration is more effective when negotiating meaning, suggesting ideas, and discussing content outlines rather than reflecting on the knowledge itself.

Navigating Power Relationships

Two main factors have been identified by the interviewees as the preventing factors of being engaged in online international collaboration environments. First, the students interviewed stated that pairing graduate students with undergraduate students caused difficulties in online international collaboration, and that this was, perhaps, due to the online nature of the pairing process. This seems to suggest that partnering students at different education levels, and hence students with different academic goals and interests, is not ideal. When talking about undergraduate groups in terms of collaboration, one of the interviewees stated:

The students were much younger and they had like other priorities, so it was more difficult to collaborate with them. But in the second class, they were master’s students so they were very engaged in what they were doing. I think it was better in that [graduate] group. (Daniel)

Another interviewee stated:

For the fall [when working with the graduate group] we did really good [sic]. We did Skype, we had good conversations in the fall. In the spring [when working with the undergraduate group] we did not even have communication, the only semi-synchronous was the WhatsApp, and we happened to be [online] at the same time. Like I said, texting is not as freely able as to freely discuss you would like sitting in front of a computer talking to somebody. There is not so much you can type. (Jennifer)

The second inhibiting factor was selecting a unique research topic. When talking about how the collaboration process was initiated in selecting the topic of the project, one of the interviewees stated, “[…I]t was not as important a project for them as it appeared” (Jennifer). It seems that when the chosen topic was not interesting to both groups, students did not become actively engaged. Both groups were to choose the topic simultaneously and then set the outlines and work on them until the end of the projects.

Social Presence for Intimacy and Immediacy

Students expressed more feelings of intimacy and immediacy when communicating through video conferencing than by email and other textual applications. For instance, one of the students, when talking about video conferencing stated:

It [synchronous communication] was just so much better to be able to communicate with the video using Skype and the video. It was more personal; it was more relaxed… it was so much fun to put the name and the face together. (Erica)

Students also expressed that they learned a great deal through communicating simultaneously about personal perspectives, people’s personalities, social aspects, applications, and psychological factors, in synchronous communication—in contrast, they cited learning more specific course content in asynchronous collaboration. For example, one student stated:

I remember he, [Costa Rican instructor], had just recently had a baby and the baby was crying in the background which was kind of cool because that guy has a life and that was neat. I don’t know if there was anything culturally significant or you know it could have been somebody in California and did not make a difference when they were in Costa Rica. (William)

Rich media appears to have helped students learn more about personal aspects. Future research should continue to explore the benefits of synchronous learning to support these goals.

In contrast, asynchronous collaboration appeared to weaken social presence in textual communication. One of the students stated that, “… I really barely remember the young man” (Isabel) when she communicated only in text through email. On the other hand, one student stated about asynchronous collaboration,

What I was really looking for in the project of international online collaboration was the chance to get to know the students in the other country to actually like, really understand the perspectives, but it seemed like just [a] computer screen sending information at me that I would put into the PBworks. And the same with them, we would send information to them, and a computer screen would look at them, and put it in the PBworks. Okay, we collaborated, but really in the very weak sense of collaboration because it was just emails back and forth. (Christopher)

The previous student did not have the opportunity to connect with international partners synchronously, so they did not view or hear their partners. In contrast, synchronous collaboration was expressed as a supportive factor of learning social aspects. One of the respondents stated, “It was more of social aspects they were interested [sic], maybe was not much about the educational aspects.” (Isabel). This student mentioned that after the international collaboration course, they started communicating with their project partner and began holding occasional global classroom sessions.

Learning by Interaction

When students interacted with each other, they learned from each other by exchanging ideas and negotiating meanings, comparing their respective experiences with the subject matter. For example, one of the subjects stated:

I learned about the health care system in Costa Rica, the actual topic [of our project]—I ended up being able to learn about the Costa Rican health system in the fall. In the spring, I learned about their nursing program—they are different in Costa Rica than in the United States. That was the focus of the project. In the spring, was [sic] nursing programs. I learned about health professions and the differences and similarities between their [Costa Rican] programs and the U.S. programs. (Jennifer)

Interacting with each other also helped students identify their own knowledge gaps. For example, one subject lamented, “[…T]hey were proficient in English, and unfortunately I was not in Spanish” (David). By interacting with bilingual students, the subject learned the advantages of speaking more than one language.

The collaboration also provided opportunities for participants to hone their problem-solving skills in a group setting. Another one of the subjects stated:

Coming away as a technology student, I learned, you know, some of the barriers that can happen when you try to do collaboration either with different schools, or different countries, different time zones—Those are all things that, you know, we learned how to work around to try to do a collaboration—It is not as easy it looks like on the syllabus, but I found it overall… the concept very interesting, and I enjoyed attempting it both times (William).

In addition to accomplishing the tasks set forth in the syllabus, students successfully overcame several other challenges that arose in the collaborative cyberspace.

Accommodating Cultural and Linguistic Differences

This theme involved the cross-cultural components of the interactions. More specifically, this theme addressed the ability for online collaboration to help with the language barrier and deepen understanding of potential cultural differences between interaction partners.

Language and Cultural Background

Even though the clarification of concepts and negotiation of meanings depend on the nature of the media used, it becomes less important to have a media richness mediator when collaborating with someone who speaks the same language and shares a similar cultural background. One of the U.S. students, who happens to be from Costa Rica, stated:

[…W]e are very used to use [sic] chat,[it] and is not something really new, and it was not the first time for any of us to collaborate in that way. You don’t need to know how to interpret facial expressions or some phrases since we all speak Spanish and Costa Rican Spanish. (Daniel)

All of the interviewees mentioned that there were not any significant language barriers, as the Costa Rican students spoke English proficiently. As this study demonstrates, when the collaborators are fluent in the communicative language, it is less likely that there will be linguistic difficulties.

Prior research has shown that students who collaborate through video conferencing tend to cite culturally-related factors in their positive feedback (Zhou & Sun, 2022). In the current study, results indicate that when collaborators speak the same language and share the same cultural values and norms, they do not need to rely as heavily on the richness of the media to support social presence as much as communicators from different languages and cultural backgrounds. When contrasting cultural and linguistic backgrounds are attempting to collaborate, the nature of the media becomes increasingly important, as was clearly explained by the participants in the current study. It does also seem as though synchronous communication was most important for establishing cultural competency in the study, as free-flowing communication was more frequently possible.

Learning the Tools of Online Collaboration

This theme involved how students learned the tools of online collaboration. Participants initiated communication in an asynchronous context to arrange to meet synchronously. Once they met synchronously, they set the parameters of their collaboration and then resumed working asynchronously. Two respondents (Mary, Daniel) stated that they relied heavily on email to coordinate their collaboration efforts. Students, in general, had positive feedback on synchronous collaboration. One respondent stated:

You can negotiate meaning if there was a time that something maybe didn’t make sense right [away], and then you can ask; elaborate more on that rather than in email, you would have to wait a couple days to get the answer, and then like, sometimes I would get an answer back and then I don’t remember what the confusion was. It is nice everybody is on board, as well. (Christopher)

While talking about synchronous communication, the same student also recalled, “we got a lot of work done when we were doing synchronous communication because we could clarify what we actually want. Like clarification and negotiation of meaning to get progress reports on how everyone was doing on their particular spot” (Christopher)—other students expressed similar ideas about this benefit of synchronous communication. Conversely, some students encountered difficulties when there were multiple people communicating at the same time; these interactions distracted the group by providing superfluous suggestions for a plan of action.

Addressing Remaining Challenges

This final theme involved the challenge of coordinating communication given semester differences between the two collaboration entities, as well as technical difficulties in the online forum. These issues posed a significant barrier in terms of conflicting holidays, time differences, and breaks in the school year, as well as with general communication clarity.

Semester Schedule Differences

Differences in semester scheduling have been recognized as the most challenging factor when collaborating with people from a different country (Scovotti & Spiller, 2011). In the current study, the U.S. institution’s semester started in January while the Costa Rican institution’s semester started in March. One respondent stated, “When we were in our program, we were deep into our program doing projects and she ended up doing everything herself” (Mary). As is often the case in group work, when partners do not collaborate, others end up completing everything by themselves—in fact, delegation of equitable work amounts is an often-cited problem in group projects (LaBeouf et al., 2016). Another respondent stated that,

The biggest barrier was the timing up of the class. We were taking it in the spring and they had holidays and the project started later. Time was an issue when the spring class in their semester or their term did not coincide with ours because they had a holiday and they were out of class a lot of time. (Jennifer)

These differing starting dates made the collaboration process more difficult for students and also made it harder to have an equitable balance regarding the amount of work produced.

Disadvantages of Online International Collaboration

Technical issues were a frequent challenge for students when communicating synchronously. While many students remedied this problem by coordinating asynchronously, avoiding a heavy reliance on synchronous online programs, this created subsequent issues with response times. One respondent said, “Sometimes the responses were slower than what you would like. The care and supervision become low when you collaborate internationally online asynchronously” (Christopher). It appears that students will continue to have to navigate the balance between technical issues of synchronous learning and response issue with asynchronous learning.

Information overload was also a challenge when communicating at various times as well. One response to information overload was when one of the international partners was intensely committed to the project, so they sent many emails every few hours. As a result, her collaborator was overwhelmed with the amount of email information, causing a sense of overload. Usually, when people have more available time, they can explore more of the topic and dive into the literature of the topic to enrich the content. In contrast, this might increase the information load on the collaborators and make it difficult to review what their partners have written or uploaded to the platform.

General Discussion

The current research sought to address inconsistencies found in the prior literature regarding the benefit and downfalls of synchronous and asynchronous learning methods in online settings. This research also intended to investigate these effects in a setting where both methods of learning are used simultaneously, considering that many courses now involve a blend of both delivery methods, as well as in the context of international collaboration. Interviews suggested a few common themes, which will be reviewed further below.

Benefits and Downfalls of Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning

First, in regard to RQ1, interviewees consistently indicated that asynchronous methods were most effective for ensuring the development of cognitive goals in the course—this is consistent with prior work that suggests the benefits of asynchronous learning on academic achievement (Mercimek & Çaka, 2022) and provides the first evidence of this in an international collaboration context. Second, synchronous methods did help to provide interviewees with social connection that helped benefit social presence in the course, an effect consistent with research on synchronous methods and social presence (Hollebeek et al., 2021)—interviewees also commented on the benefits of increased cultural awareness which was developed via asynchronous methods, revealing another potential benefit of this approach, although this is likely to be most commonly found in international contexts and will, presumably, not generalize to non-international settings.

In terms of selecting topics of study, almost all the interviewed collaborators who were asked to assess the quality of the collaboration indicated that both teams should choose the topic they were going to collaborate on simultaneously. When both group members choose the topic aids simultaneously, it allows for a discussion about content interests and helps in developing the same outlined goals. This collaborative component appeared to be a necessary point of interest for all of the interviewees.

In regard to RQ2, nuances were found in the disadvantages of these methods which may contribute to the inconsistencies found in prior work, including the difficulty in receiving prompt feedback across different time zones in asynchronous learning and the lack of focus for participants sometimes found in synchronous learning methods—the lack of prompt feedback may in part be due to the international nature of the design, as the goals of coursework may differ significantly across different cultures. One might consider if quantitative research assessing the perceived goals and motivation for taking an international collaboration course may give insight as to where cross-cultural differences exist prior to international collaboration. This may help to address differences up front and prevent such differences from impacting performance. Overall, this research provides critical insight into the balance of synchronous and asynchronous methods being simultaneously used in a single course and provides a series of take-home points about this balance.

Several recommendations were articulated by the interviewees about effective online international collaboration. First, interviewees recommended starting at the same point in the semester, if possible. If starting on the same dates is impossible, both groups should, at least, start the project together to have effective collaboration. Starting the semester schedules at different times causes several problems such as an unequal time spent on the project, heavily weighted work on the group which starts the semester earlier, and an acceleration of the timeline of the project for one group compared to the other. If no coordination is feasible, professors should be keenly aware of when the projects are to be completed and work to ensure that both groups’ responsibilities are divided equitably. Figure 1 depicts the amount of time the students had to collaborate on projects in this study:

Figure 1.

An example of spring semester differences.

Programs should also consider how pairing graduate students with undergraduate students may slow or generally damage the process of collaboration—in this study’s setup, graduate students ended up fulfilling the project requirements by themselves. Undergraduate students did not seem to have a high level of eagerness in the process of collaboration, and several graduate students did not have an interest in collaborating with disinterested undergraduate students. Interviewees expressed concerns that the undergraduates asked many cultural and social questions not related to the collaborative topics while the graduate students seemed to be more focused on the content and what it took to develop it.

For circumstances where topic selection was unilateral, students noted that this was a disengaging factor for the entire process, preventing them from being fully involved in contributing to the project. U.S. students who took the courses in the spring stated that their Costa Rican partners were not heavily involved and responsive to their communication tools in the collaborative platform when U.S. students had chosen the topic before their Costa Rican partners joined them. This finding confirms what Yiu (2014) states, that sharing ideas earlier in the collaboration process and brainstorming together encourages a sense of ownership for all participants, which is a critical factor in the effectiveness of distributed team collaboration.

Developing Cultural Awareness

Finally, at some point, students need to collaborate using video conferencing tools to increase their social presence and gain a sense of each other’s personalities. Students cited the importance of seeing and hearing each other on these platforms, especially if the cultural and linguistic backgrounds differed between the two teams. One of the interviewees stated that there was relative ease of conversation found in the synchronous setting, and that the ability to “see their facial expressions” benefitted the collaborative process (Jennifer). Although some students did discuss that there was a lack of focus and organization to the first synchronous meeting, likely due to the novelty of the group and the technology used, many of the interviewees agreed that these issues decreased gradually over time in later sessions. Again, as collaborative classrooms and learning environments have been used to a greater degree recently, this barrier to progress should lessen. Overall, it feels as though the online collaborative process helped to encourage some level of cultural awareness amongst the participants, providing supporting evidence for RQ3.

Future Research

One of the interesting findings of this study is that participants of the courses from the two different universities indicated higher social presence when using rich media to collaborate whereas earlier research indicates that social presence depends on social factors rather that the type of media used (Alanazi, 2019; Richardson et al., 2017). This poses an interesting question as to if media richness may play a role in affecting levels of social presence. Future research may consider investigating this potential relationship.

In addition, several interviewed learners articulated that pairing different levels of education was a challenging variable when undergraduate and graduate students collaborate internationally online. This may be indicative of the inevitable lifestyle differences between graduate students and undergraduates, or simply due to age differences between graduate and undergraduate samples that may differentiate participants in terms of maturity, focus on schooling, and other similar traits. Preparing graduate students for this issue may go far in helping to prevent this from interfering with the learning process in future courses. Future research may consider confirming the findings of the current study by examining differences in students’ performance and engagement in online international collaboration based on level of education. Such an investigation may further clarify if it would be beneficial for online international collaborators to take levels of education into consideration in their collaborative project designs.

Conclusion

Based on experience of the graduate students in this study, it appears that online international collaboration can support students in the learning process by encouraging them to socialize and collaborate with peers with whom they might not otherwise have had the chance to work. The exchange of knowledge was facilitated in specific ways, but it appears asynchronous forms of communication were viewed more positively for actual content learning than synchronous methods, seemingly by allowing participants the flexibility to respond to their peers at their convenience after reflection. While this contrasts with some prior research on synchronous learning (Libasin et al., 2021), media-rich synchronous communication methods did support students’ feelings of immediacy and intimacy by allowing them to communicate in real time. These data also suggest synchronous collaboration not only enhances social presence, but can foster students’ cultural understanding, helping them to challenge their own assumptions about different groups.

During the interviews, graduate students expressed high levels of satisfaction with the opportunity to advance a variety of critical academic and interpersonal skills through these various methods. For students with demanding schedules or more reserved personalities, online international collaboration provides an opportunity to actively engage in the learning environment while still adhering to compact schedules or individual dispositions. Difficult issues do remain in this area, primarily the inherent variability in academic schedules. While this obstacle may continue to impair the collaborative process in international learning environments until the adequate workarounds are constructed within university calendars, the current research still suggests many benefits offered by both synchronous and asynchronous communication methods in this realm.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Taibah University and the University of Kansas for their support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ahmed A. Alsayer

References

Aguilar

Pifarre Turmo

(2019). Promoting social creativity in science education with digital technology to overcome inequalities: A scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1474.

Akcaoglu

Lee

(2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 1–17.

Alanazi

A. A.

(2016). A critical review of constructivist theory and the emergence of constructionism. American Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 1–8.

Alanazi

A. A.

(2019). Online learning environments: Investigating the factors influencing social presence [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas].

Alanazi

A. A.

Frey

B. B.

Niileksela

Lee

S. W.

Nong

Alharbi

(2020). The role of task value and technology satisfaction in student performance in graduate-level online courses. TechTrends, 64(6), 922–930. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1933684.

Azhari

S. C.

Rosali

E. S.

Firmansyah

M. F.

Maulana

H. Z.

(2022). Investigating family and peer support on learning habits and achievements in online learning. JINOTEP (Jurnal Inovasi dan Teknologi Pembelajaran): Kajian dan Riset Dalam Teknologi Pembelajaran, 9(2), 136–144.

Basri

Husain

Modayama

(2021). University students’ perceptions in implementing asynchronous learning during COVID-19 era. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature and Teaching, 4(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v4i3.2734

Bernard

R. M.

Abrami

P. C.

Lou

Borokhovski

Wade

Wozney

Wallet

P. A.

Fiset

Huang

(2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.

Biesenbach-Lucas

(2003). Asynchronous discussion groups in teacher training classes: Perceptions of native and non-native students. JALN, 7(3), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1843

10.

Blaikie

(2018). Confounding issues related to determining sample size in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 635–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454644

11.

Calder

Jafri

Guo

(2021). Mathematics education students’ experiences during lockdown: Managing collaboration in eLearning. Education Sciences, 11(4), 191.

12.

Camargo

C. P.

Tempski

P. Z.

Busnardo

F. F.

Martins

M. D. A.

Gemperli

(2020). Online learning and COVID-19: A meta-synthesis analysis. Clinics, 75, e2286.

13.

Chang

B. M.

(2016). Cross-cultural distance learning project for promoting English language proficiency and cultural awareness of university students in Korea. International Journal of Computer science and Information technology for Education, 1(1), 13–20. http://doi.org/10.21742/ijcsite.2016.1.03

14.

Chiu

T. K.

Lin

T. J.

Lonka

(2021). Motivating online learning: The challenges of COVID-19 and beyond. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(3), 187–190. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00566-w

15.

Cobb

S. C.

(2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241–254.

16.

Daniela

(2021). Smart pedagogy as a driving wheel for technology-enhanced learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(4), 711–718.

17.

Desai

Stahl

Chamorro-Koc

(2021). Global design studio: Advancing cross-disciplinary experiential education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 26(4), 165–181.

18.

Deterding

N. M.

Waters

M. C.

(2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739.

19.

Duncan

Kenworthy

McNamara

(2012). The effects of synchronous and asynchronous participation on students’ performance in online accounting courses. Accounting Education, 21(4), 431–449.

20.

Ellis

(2001, December). Student-centred collaborative learning via face-to-face and asynchronous online communication: What’s the difference [Conference session]. Proceedings 18th ASCILITE Conference, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (pp. 9–12).

21.

Emmanouilidou

Derri

Antoniou

Kyrgiridis

(2012). Comparison between synchronous and asynchronous instructional delivery method of training programme on in-service physical educators’ knowledge. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(4), 193–208.

22.

Entezarjou

Bolmsjö

B. B.

Calling

Midlöv

Nymberg

V. M.

(2020). Experiences of digital communication with automated patient interviews and asynchronous chat in Swedish primary care: A qualitative study. BMJ Open, 10(7), e036585. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036585.

23.

Etcuban

J. O.

Pantinople

L. D.

(2018). The effects of mobile application in teaching high school mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 249–259. http://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3906

24.

Fischer

I. D.

Yang

J. C.

(2022). Flipping the flipped class: using online collaboration to enhance EFL students’ oral learning skills. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 15.

25.

Gibbs

G. R.

(2008). Analyzing qualitative data. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867

26.

Gill

Baillie

(2018). Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: An update for the digital age. British Dental Journal, 225(7), 668–672. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815.

27.

Graham

C. R.

Misanchuk

(2004). Computer-mediated learning groups: Benefits and challenges to using groupwork in online learning environments. In Roberts

T. S.

(Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 181–202). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-174-2.ch008

28.

Hanze

Berger

(2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 1(17), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.004

29.

Heshmat

Neustaedter

McCaffrey

Odom

Wakkary

Yang

(2020, April). Familystories: Asynchronous audio storytelling for family members across time zones [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376486.

30.

Hollebeek

L. D.

Clark

M. K.

Macky

(2021). Demystifying consumer digital cocreated value: Social presence theory-informed framework and propositions. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 36(4), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051570720961986.

31.

Holmberg

Bernath

Busch

F. W.

(2005). The evolution, principles and practices of distance education. BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg.

32.

Hostetter

(2013). Community matters: Social presence and learning outcomes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 77–86.

33.

Ismailov

(2021). Virtual exchanges in an inquiry-based learning environment: Effects on intra-cultural awareness and intercultural communicative competence. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1982601.

34.

Iyer

D. G.

Chapman

T. A.

(2021). Overcoming technological inequity in synchronous online learning. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(1), 26.

35.

Karkar-Esperat

T. M.

(2018). International graduate students’ challenges and learning experiences in online classes. Journal of International Students, 8(4), 1722–1735. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v8i4.227

36.

Kim

M. K.

Ketenci

(2019). Learner participation profiles in an asynchronous online collaboration context. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.02.002

37.

Kunin

Julliard

K. N.

Rodriguez

T. E.

(2014). Comparing face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous learning: postgraduate dental resident preferences. Journal of Dental Education, 78(6), 856–866. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2014.78.6.tb05739.x

38.

LaBeouf

J. P.

Griffith

J. C.

Roberts

D. L.

(2016). Faculty and student issues with group work: What is problematic with college group assignments and why? Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v5n1a2

39.

Lajoie

S. P.

Garcia

Berdugo

Márquez

Espíndola

Nakamura

(2006). The creation of virtual and face-to-face learning communities: An international collaboration experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 163–180.

40.

Larisa

(2021). An asynchronous university distance course as a possible model for international online collaboration. МирРоссии. Социология. Этнология, 30(1), 134–150.

41.

Lee

S. J.

Srinivasan

Trail

Lewis

Lopez

(2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158–163.

42.

Lee

Hong

Kim

MacPherson

(2022). How does it depend? A systematic review of the contingency theory of accommodation in communication scholarship. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102148

43.

Libasin

Azudin

R. A.

Idris

M. A.

Rahman

M. S. A.

Umar

(2021). Comparison of students’ academic performance in mathematics course with synchronous and asynchronous online learning environments during COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(2), 492–501. http://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i2/10131

44.

Licona

M. M.

Gurung

(2013). Asynchronous discussions in online multicultural education: Praxis retained. Multicultural Education, 20(3/4), 89.

45.

Liu

S. Y.

Gomez

Yen

C. J.

(2009). Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 165–182.

46.

Mackay

W. E.

(1988). Diversity in the use of electronic mail: A preliminary inquiry. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 6(4), 380–397.

47.

Manganello

Falsetti

Leo

Maragliano

Ghislandi

(2009). Team teaching in the age of e-collaboration. In Leo

Maragliano

Falcinelli

Ghislandi

(Eds.), Digital collaboration: Some issues about teachers’ functions (pp. 161–184). ScriptaWeb.

48.

Manning

Larsen

M. M.

Bharati

(2015). Global delivery models: The role of talent, speed and time zones in the global outsourcing industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(7), 850–877. http://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2015.14

49.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2013, June 08). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: 41 (Applied Social Research Methods). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348858.n7

50.

Mayer

R. E.

(2019). Thirty years of research on online learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 152–159.

51.

McCosker

Otte

Rothwell

Davids

(2021). Principles for technology use in athlete support across the skill level continuum. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 17(2), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211033471.

52.

Mercimek

Çaka

(2022). Asynchronous environments in online courses: Advantages, limitations, and recommendations. In Durak

Çankaya

(Eds.), Handbook of research on managing and designing online courses in synchronous and asynchronous environments (pp. 96–116). IGI Global. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8701-0.ch005

53.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

54.

Mohajan

H. K.

(2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v7i1.571

55.

Moorhouse

B. L.

Wong

K. M.

(2022). Blending asynchronous and synchronous digital technologies and instructional approaches to facilitate remote learning. Journal of Computers in Education, 9(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00195-8.

56.

Nieuwoudt

J. E.

(2020). Investigating synchronous and asynchronous class attendance as predictors of academic success in online education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5137

57.

C. S.

Bailenson

J. N.

Welch

G. F.

(2018). A systematic review of social presence: Definition, antecedents, and implications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 114. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00114.

58.

Park

Y. J.

Bonk

C. J.

(2007). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential learners’ perspectives in a blended graduate course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 245–264.

59.

Persada

S. F.

Prasetyo

Y. T.

Suryananda

X. V.

Apriyansyah

Ong

A. K.

Nadlifatin

Setiyati

E. A.

Putra

R. A. K.

Purnomo

Triangga

Siregar

N. J.

Carolina

Maulana

F. I.

Ardiansyahmiraja

(2022). How the education industries react to synchronous and asynchronous learning in COVID-19: Multigroup analysis insights for future online education. Sustainability, 14(22), 15288.

60.

Picciano

A. G.

(2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v6i1.1870.

61.

Potdevin

Vors

Huchez

Lamour

Davids

Schnitzler

(2018). How can video feedback be used in physical education to support novice learning in gymnastics? Effects on motor learning, self-assessment and motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(6), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1485138

62.

Radkowitsch

Vogel

Fischer

(2020). Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15, 5–47.

63.

Ratan

Ucha

Lei

Lim

Triwibowo

Yelon

Sheahan

Lamb

Deni

Chen

V. H. H.

(2022). How do social presence and active learning in synchronous and asynchronous online classes relate to students’ perceived course gains? Computers & Education, 191, 104621.

64.

Richardson

J. C.

Maeda

Caskurlu

(2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001

65.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569.6

66.

Salas-Pilco

S. Z.

Yang

Zhang

(2022). Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3), 593–619.

67.

Salmons

J. E.

(2008). Taxonomy of collaborative e-learning. In Bodner

Bieber

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of information technology curriculum integration (pp. 839–846). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-881-9.ch132

68.

Salta

Paschalidou

Tsetseri

Koulougliotis

(2022). Shift from a traditional to a distance learning environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Science & Education, 31(1), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00234-x.

69.

Scott

S. R.

Rivera

K. M.

Rushing

Manczak

E. M.

Rozek

C. S.

Doom

J. R.

(2021). “I hate this”: A qualitative analysis of adolescents’ self-reported challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(2), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.11.010.

70.

Scovotti

Spiller

L. D.

(2011). Cross-border student collaborations: Opportunities for videoconferencing. Marketing Education Review, 21(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008210108

71.

Shachaf

(2008). Cultural diversity and information and communication technology impacts on global virtual teams: An exploratory study. Information & Management, 45(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.12.003.

72.

Shandra

Chystiakova

(2021). Synchronous and asynchronous distance learning: benefits and limitations. Publishing House of University of Technology, Katowice.

73.

Shoemaker

Van Stam

(2010). e-Piano, a case of music education via e-learning in rural Zambia [Conference session]. Web Science Conference, Raleigh, NC, United States.

74.

Shonfeld

Gibson

(Eds.). (2019). Collaborative learning in a global world. Information Age Publishing.

75.

Shrivastav

Hiltz

S. R.

(2013). Information overload in technology-based education: A meta-analysis. AMCIS 2013 Proceedings, Chicago, IL. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2013/ISEducation/GeneralPresentations/6

76.

Sobko

Unadkat

Adams

Hull

(2020). Learning through collaboration: A networked approach to online pedagogy. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(1), 36–55.

77.

Soper

Ukot

(2016). Social presence and cultural competence in the online learning environment (OLE): A review of literature. American Journal of Health Sciences, 7(1), 9–14.

78.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research (vol.15). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153.

79.

Turnbull

Chugh

Luck

(2021). Transitioning to E-Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: How have Higher Education Institutions responded to the challenge? Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6401–6419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10633-w

80.

Vahed

Levine

(2019, November). Collaborative online international learning: A pedagogical intervention to enrich students’ learning [Conference session]. European Conference on e-Learning, Copenhagen, Denmark, (pp. 579–XVIII). Academic Conferences International Limited.

81.

Varkey

T. C.

Varkey

J. A.

Ding

J. B.

Varkey

P. K.

Zeitler

Nguyen

A. M.

Merhavy

Z. I.

Thomas

C. R.

(2023). Asynchronous learning: A general review of best practices for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 16(1), 4–16.

82.

Vutborg

Kjeldskov

Paay

Pedell

Vetere

(2011, November). Supporting young children’s communication with adult relatives across time zones [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (pp. 291–300). https://doi.org/10.1145/2071536.2071583

83.

Warden

Williams

Peat

T. S.

Seabrook

S. A.

Newman

Dojchinov

Haritos

V. S.

(2015). Rational engineering of a mesohalophilic carbonic anhydrase to an extreme halotolerant biocatalyst. Nature Communication, 6, 10278. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10278

84.

Whatley

Zaitseva

Zakrzewska

(2008). Student motivation in international collaboration: To participate or not to participate? In Orvis

K. L.

Lassiter

A. L.R.

(Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 225–256). IGI Global.

85.

Whitty

M. T.

(2016). Cyberpsychology: The study of individuals, society and digital technologies. John Wiley & Sons.

86.

Woodley

L. K.

Rodriguez dos Santos

Crandell

J. L.

Grant

G. G.

Cosgrove

(2023). Collaborative online international learning in undergraduate nursing education: from inspiration to impact. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 20(1), 20220077.

87.

Yiu

(2014). Collaboration with distributed teams. Interactions, 21(4), 50–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/2627341.

88.

Yoon

S. A.

Miller

Richman

Wendel

Schoenfeld

Anderson

Shim

(2020). Encouraging collaboration and building community in online asynchronous professional development: Designing for social capital. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15, 351–371.

89.

Zhou

Sun

(2022). Computer media and communication of folk culture in Shaanxi literary works under the background of big data [Conference session]. International Conference on Cognitive based Information Processing and Applications (CIPA 2021), Singapore (pp. 86–94). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5854-9_11

90.

Zou

Pan

Cai

Liu

(2021). Exploring the relationship between social presence and learners’ prestige in MOOC discussion forums using automated content analysis and social network analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106582.

Learners’ Experiences in an Online Learning Environment: An Analysis of the Impact of International Collaboration

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Problem Statement

Related Literature

Commonly Used Communication Methods and Their Importance

Asynchronous Distance Learning

Synchronous Distance Learning

Synchronous/Asynchronous Learning and Developing Cultural Awareness

Purpose of Study

Research Design and Method

Participants

Data Collection

Compliance With Ethical Standards

Analytic Approach

Results

Negotiating Helpful Interaction Patterns

Reflection on Knowledge

Navigating Power Relationships

Social Presence for Intimacy and Immediacy

Learning by Interaction

Accommodating Cultural and Linguistic Differences

Language and Cultural Background

Learning the Tools of Online Collaboration

Addressing Remaining Challenges

Semester Schedule Differences

Disadvantages of Online International Collaboration

General Discussion

Benefits and Downfalls of Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning

Developing Cultural Awareness

Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References