International Journal for Educational Media and Technology

2015, Vol.9, No. 1, pp. 16-24

Analysis of an International Project-Based

Learning Collaboration Using the Community
of Inquiry Framework
Shinichi Sato
Nihon Fukushi
University
satoshin@nfukushi.ac.jp

Makoto Kageto
Nihon Fukushi University
makoto@kageto.jp
This study analyzes an international project-based learning (PBL)
collaboration among Asian university students to help enhance the future
implementation of such international collaborative projects. In international
collaboration, students have opportunities to use foreign languages in
practical settings and to utilize various Web tools. The authors hosted an
international PBL conference called the World Youth Meeting (WYM) to
provide such opportunities to students. A core activity of the WYM is joint
presentations conducted in English, in which participating students from
several Asian countries collaborate in both online and face-to-face settings.
This study focuses on online collaboration, and analyzes the activities of the
WYM using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework to elicit insight into
the effects of collaboration on learning.
Keywords: project-based learning, community of inquiry, social media, international
education, collaborative education

Introduction
In this global era, the ability to work collaboratively, both face to face and
online, is important. Team collaboration has been designated a 21st century skill
(Griffin, McGaw, & Care, 2012), and as of 2015 is assessed by the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA). Aiming to foster such skills among
students, the authors have hosted an international project-based learning (PBL)
conference called the World Youth Meeting (WYM) annually for more than a
decade.
A core activity of the WYM is joint presentations conducted in English, which
participating students from various Asian countries collaborate to prepare, in both
online and face-to-face settings. In recent years, students have mostly used popular
social media tools, such as Facebook and Line, without teachers supervision, as
part of their online collaboration, and teachers sometimes lack information
regarding what occurs during this collaboration. To foster students online
collaboration skills, knowledge regarding the use of social media tools is important;
hence, this study aims to clarify students use of social media tools, and analyzes
their communications during online collaboration using the community of inquiry
(CoI) framework proposed by Garrison (2011). This study also discusses some
principles of effective online collaboration and instructional design.

Previous Studies and Theoretical

Background
PBL helps students to develop flexible knowledge, problem-solving skills, selfdirected lifelong learning skills, collaboration skills, and intrinsic motivation
(Hmelo-Silver, 2004). In international projects, students also have the opportunity
to use foreign languages in a practical setting and to utilize various online tools
important skills in the 21st century. Students should therefore benefit greatly from
involvement in international collaborative projects. The authors have practiced PBL
on the basis of certain theories to help students achieve fulfilling learning
outcomes. For example, the experiential learning model proposed by Kolb (1984)
provides a foundation to design a whole project, from preparation at the beginning
to reflection at the

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1624 ISSN 18822290

end. Kageto (2007) proposed an instructional design for international collaborative

learning focusing on communication, in which he insisted on the importance of
both face-to-face and online communication and of setting definite goals. Kageto,
Sato, and Kirkpatrick (2012) point out the importance of facing the inevitable
conflicts that occur in international collaboration, and cite the dual concern model
(Rahim, 2002) as a conflict resolution model that is suitable for international
collaborative projects. In this model, five approaches to solving conflicts are
introduced, examining both concern for self and concern for ones partners on a
scale from high to low. Kageto et al. (2012) also maintain that it is important to
construct positive relationships for the overcoming of conflict, through such casual
exchanges as sightseeing together.
The importance of casual exchange was explored from the perspective of
social presence, using the CoI framework proposed by Garrison (2011). CoI
incorporates the notion of three presences: social presence, cognitive presence,
and teaching presence (Table 1)
Table 1
Three Presences in the Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison, 2011, pp. 2324)
The ability of participants to identify with a group,
communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and
Social
develop personal and affective relationships progressively by
presence
way of projecting their individual personalities
The extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm
meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a
Cognitive
critical community of inquiry
presence
The design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social
Teaching
processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful
presence
and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes

Garrison claimed that all these presences, including social presence, are important
for a fulfilling learning experience; however, he also notes that excessive emphasis
on developing interpersonal relationships may have deleterious effects, and that
identification with the purpose of the group in an educational context has a strong
influence on academic behavior. An effective project design should consider such
observations. CoI has been used to understand learning in a collaborative
educational environment (e.g., Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Ling, 2007), and seems
to be an effective reference for the design and achievement of successful higher
education experiences.
The online learning environment is also an important factor in collaborative
project-based learning online. When information and communication technology
(ICT) was less widespread among students, teachers sometimes prepared
environments for online collaboration, such as bulletin board systems (BBSs) or
customized class-specific social networking sites (SNSs). However, most students
now use various social media tools in their daily lives, and generally have no
trouble finding ways to communicate online with foreign students. In addition,
students can engage in quick, timely message exchanges because of these tools
push delivery function. Furthermore, students tend to exchange a much larger
number of messages using these tools than using tools prepared by teachers or
universities (Sato, Kageto, & Kirkpatrick, 2013). Other studies claim that teachers
should further consider how to use social media in their classes. For example,
Blackmore (2010) indicated that universities should consider the connection
between formal instruction and students informal activities on SNSs in order to
develop an environment in which student-centered learning can be practiced
effectively. Somewhat similarly, Bowen (2012) indicated the importance for
teachers of being connected with students on social media for the achievement of
high-quality education and better understanding of students.
An online learning environment is expected to affect the quality of posts and
exchanges on it. Sato and Kageto (2013) observed a difference in quality between
posts on their campus SNS and on Facebook. Posts on the campus SNS were rather
long and reflective compared to posts on Facebook, although the latter were much
more frequent. However, these authors described only a general tendency in their
use of SNSs during the project, and did not focus on the concrete nature of the
collaboration. It thus remains important to better understand the details of how
students collaborate online to fulfill a concrete task.

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1624 ISSN 18822290

Research Questions
Considering the earlier studies described above and the current use of social
media in education, the following research questions were formulated:
1. How do students communicate online during a collaborative activity?
2. What educational meaning does student behavior in online collaboration
have in relation to CoI? What would constitute a situation of students
social, cognitive, and teaching presence?
3. What should teachers focus on if they wish to foster better online
collaboration in the social media era?
Although the CoI framework has been applied in various educational practices,
less is known about its applicability to PBL facilitated by commercial social media
tools such as Facebook and Line. By tackling these research questions, the authors

seek to establish some guidelines or tips for better instructional design for online
collaboration in PBL including the use of commercial social media tools.

Methodology
Target Activities
This analysis focuses on an online collaboration to prepare a presentation for
an event called the World Youth Meeting (WYM). The faculty that hosted the study
offers a formal class that aims at preparation for the WYM (Kageto, 2007; Kageto &
Sato, 2009). Students enrolled in this class prepare all the necessary materials for
the WYM. In 2014, these students were divided into 12 groups: leaders, presenters,
master or mistress of ceremonies (MCs), opening session organizers, music session
organizers, workshop organizers, proceedings organizers, hall-keepers, foreign
affairs officers, accommodation officers, food organizers, and public
relations/media officers. Some groups were further divided into subgroups. To
make the event successful, students need to tackle many tasks collaboratively.
Among the various roles represented, the present authors focus on those involved
in group presentation activities, because those who are conducting presentations
need to collaborate online with international partners toward a joint presentation
(of which approximately 20 are given in the WYM).
The WYM takes place at a Japanese university, and non-Japanese or overseas
participants include students from Cambodia, South Korea, Malaysia, and the
Philippines. To investigate the details of this online collaboration qualitatively, five
groups containing Japanese members from the authors university were chosen as
the survey targets. Table 2 provides details of each target groups members.
Table 3
Target Groups Members
Group A Japan: One second-year student (female), two first-year
students (female) Cambodia: Two second-year students
(male and female)
Group B Japan: Three fourth-year students (two male
and one female) Korea: Two second-year
students (male and female)
Group C Japan: One second-year student, one firstyear student Malaysia: Two second-year
students (male and female)

Group D Japan: One second-year student, two firstyear students Philippines: Two third-year
students (male and female)
Group E Japan: One second-year student (female), two first-year
students (female) Philippines: One third-year student
(female)
Note: Students were all between 18 and 22 years of age

Collection and Analysis of Students Online Communication

Methods
The authors focused on how students communicated across languages,
cultures, and physical distance in order to construct their joint presentations.
Previously, in preparing for the WYM, the Japanese students had communicated
with overseas students in an ICT environment prepared by their teachers.
However, as

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1624 ISSN 18822290

commercial social media have become widespread, students have come to use
popular social media tools such as Facebook, Skype, and Line. Thus, in recent
years, students have seemed to communicate more on these popular platforms;
what is not clear, however, is whether these platforms allow, foster, or hinder
effective online collaboration. In particular, because students use systems outside
their teachers scope of management, it is impossible to collect communication log
data. Hence, the authors adopted semi-structured interviews to reveal how their
students collaborate online. The basic question items are exemplified below:
-

What kind of online communication tools did

you mainly use? (email, Facebook, Line, Skype,
etc.)
Why did you choose such tools? (Why did you not choose other tools?)
How and for what purposes did you use such tools?
Alone or with other group members
Discussion of the presentation, as well as small talk
How did you share resources and/or draft presentation files?
How do you evaluate your own groups online collaboration?

All the question items except the last one were set to obtain information about
how students communicate online during a collaborative activity (research
question 1). The last question item aimed to obtain hints to consider a situation of
students social, cognitive, and teaching presence (research question 2). Through
the consideration about the results of research question 1 and 2, teachers
expected focus for better online collaboration (research question 3) would be
discussed.
The authors have conducted this project as part of the universitys official
curriculum in Japan and have aimed to improve the curriculum of the university;
therefore, as a first step of this research, the authors decided to conduct an
analysis from the perspective of Japanese students. Both authors conducted
interviews with the students in each group and all 14 students of the target groups
were interviewed in total. Students were interviewed in their groups. An interview
lasted for approximately 30 minutes for a group. One author presided over the
interview and the other typed students answers and stored them on a laptop
computer. After the interviews, both authors confirmed the definition of each CoI
presence together, as defined in Table 1, and discussed the state of each students
presence based on the interview transcripts until they reached agreement.

Online Collaboration in the WYM

Outline of Collaboration
Table 3 shows the general schedule followed to produce English presentations
for the WYM
Table 3
Schedule of English Presentations for the WYM
Timeline
Beginning of April
April to early May
Early May
May to late July
Early August to the event days
Event days

Outline of activities
Start of the semester
Overseas participants are selected
Students are divided into 12 groups
Each group proceeds with its own tasks
Face-to-face collaboration
English presentations

Once the overseas participants arrive in Japan, they have less than a week to
prepare for their presentations. In addition, during this time, several activities are
organized for them, such as a courtesy call, a cultural tour, and time with their host
family. Hence, pre-arranging sufficient online collaboration to finish the
presentations before their visit is crucial even though they will also work together
in a face-to-face setting after their arrival in Japan.
Once students meet face to face, their relationship tends to become very
close. Even after overseas participants return to their home countries, they often
keep in touch with their counterparts from other

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1624 ISSN 18822290

countries through social media tools. One of the challenges adopted by this
project was how to vitalize the online collaboration that occurs before these faceto-face meetings.

Online Conferencing in a Classroom

Internet infrastructure has greatly improved in recent years, and connections
among Asian countries are of high quality. In recent years, the authors have
hosted videoconferencing sessions in a classroom, beginning soon after the
overseas participants are selected. These sessions are not limited to members of
the presentation group. These sessions were held with one overseas student
(sometimes with some local staff or teachers) and approximately 80 Japanese
students and teachers. One of the purposes of this session is to help Japanese
students to develop a feeling of intimacy with the overseas students. Doing so is
expected both to motivate Japanese students to help their overseas partners have
a fulfilling experience in Japan and to promote student efforts in ensuring a
successful WYM. Presentation group students are expected to collaborate
effectively with overseas students, while students in the other groups are
expected to work harder to host them.

Online Communication in Each Presentation Group

Once the overseas participants have been selected, the teachers forward
their information to their Japanese collaboration partners. Generally, students
open up communication by email and exchange SNS information, after which they
communicate via the SNS. Table 4 shows how members of each group in the
present study communicated.
Table 4
Result of Interviews
Group
A

Question ite
Tools
Reason

Uses of the tool

Sharing of resou

Evaluation

Tools
Reason

Uses of the tool

Sharing of resou
Evaluation

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1624 ISSN 18822290

Tools
Reason

Uses of the tools

Sharing resources
Evaluation

Tools
Reason
Uses of the tools

Sharing of resources
Evaluation

Tools
Reason
Uses of the tools

Sharing of resources
Evaluation

In most groups, students communicated more frequently by Facebook or Line

than by email. However, they did use email to exchange longer messages and to
share presentation files. Some members also enjoyed casual communication on
Facebook, by liking each others posts and posting comments on them. However,
most first-year students mentioned that they had not communicated with overseas
students on Facebook or Line. The exception was a first-year student in group C,
who happened to be hosting an overseas student from his group in his home. He
mentioned that he might not have had this casual communication with the
overseas student otherwise.
Apart from group B, groups did not establish or consider establishing an
online locus where all members could communicate together, such as a Facebook
or Line group. Group D members mentioned an awareness that they were not
proficient at ICT, and that they simply communicated as they could, without
considering setting up a more sophisticated system.
All groups were generally satisfied with the fact that they had managed to
prepare and deliver English presentations; however, most groups regretted the
process used for online collaboration. Although all second-year students in each
group (except group B) had given joint presentations the previous year, they felt
that they were still not sufficiently skilled to manage the online collaboration
process. The second-year

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1624 ISSN 18822290

students also mentioned that they tended to be self-absorbed and failed to involve
the first-year students as much as they could have. Some first-year students
mentioned in this regard that they had wanted to contribute more but did not know
how.

Discussion
In this section, students online collaboration is considered in terms of the CoI
framework. Social presence is affected by how students (of all countries)
communicate and use media, and often fostered by students informal discussions,
which lead to mutual understanding and positive relationships. The goal of the
collaborative work (the presentation) was very clear, indicating a high cognitive
presence, under which students construct and confirm the meaning of their
collaboration. Finally, teachers developed and designed this project, and supported
students activities (with their teaching presence). This section looks in detail at
how these presences were achieved and how each could be improved. As a
limitation of this study, the authors relied on empirical analysis. It would be useful
to assess the status of each presence more objectively, for example, by using the
instrument proposed by Arbaugh et al. (2008) in the future.

Social Presence
Some students enjoyed casual communication, and exchanged messages more
frequently by Facebook than by email. Students voluntary use of social media
seems to have been effective at enhancing social presence (in the CoI framework)
among group members. Group B frequently exchanged messages on Line and
collaborated effectively in this medium, because they could communicate in a
casual manner without close supervision by their teachers, thus achieving high
levels of social presence. It would be preferable for teachers to rely on the
students self-initiative and try not to interfere excessively.
However, other groups did not communicate in this way. Although the authors
did not assess students degree of each presence in the CoI framework, the social
presence of first-year students seems to have been low. Except for group B, the
groups were composed of both second- and first-year students, and it was generally
second-year students who took the initiative to communicate with overseas

students. Hence, first-year students missed opportunities and lacked the

imperative to engage in casual discussion on social media, leading to low social
presence. Only one first-year student in group C whose family hosted an overseas
student, engaged in casual conversation with that student via Line. However, most
first-year students later engaged in casual conversation on Facebook and/or Line
with their overseas partners, and tended to regret not having done so during the
initial online collaboration. Although commercial social media tools are effective in
building relationships, it would not be expected for students social presence to be
automatically enhanced, particularly in a limited time period of online collaborative
project works. It is crucial to determine how teaching presence manifests under
such circumstances; teachers should show strong teaching presence and
encourage students to communicate informally to enhance social presence among
group members.

Cognitive Presence
Cognitive presence seems to have been high, because the goal of collaborative
work was clear and it would not have been difficult for students to construct and
confirm the meaning of their collaboration. In fact, however, only a limited number
of Japanese students communicated with overseas students; other group members
roles shrank and their cognitive presence decreased. Most groups did not prepare
an environment such as a Facebook group, Line group, or mailing list to share
information with all group members. Instead, students tended to communicate on a
one-to-one basis, and first-year students tended to complain that they wanted to be
more involved.
As team collaboration is a designated 21st century skill, methods of online
collaboration might also be considered a skill that students should obtain. In this
context, students cognitive presence might be low, because, in the interviews, they
did not provide a well-considered reason for the tools they had used. It would be
necessary for students to reflect on their online communication methods to obtain
a higher cognitive presence. Teachers could have placed more emphasis on the
importance of thinking about online communication methods to increase students
awareness that developing such methods are also one of their learning outcomes.

Teaching Presence
When social media was less widespread, teachers prepared ICT environments,
such as exclusive bulletin board systems (BBSs), to promote international
collaboration for the WYM. At that time, teachers instructed

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1624 ISSN 18822290

students in communicating online with overseas students and managed their

communications. With the popularization of social media, however, students have
come to communicate with overseas students independently, and teachers do not
need to monitor or receive detailed reports on students online communication.
However, considering the findings on students social and teaching presence
discussed above, teachers should consider how to assess students communication
for collaboration and how to provide instruction or comments or demonstrate ways
of using social media that can improve their experience.
Some students mentioned that they used Skype because the teachers had used
Skype in class and they felt it was an effective way to engage in discussion with
overseas students. That is, students collaborative behavior seemed to be affected
by teacher activities; hence, it is important for teachers to show students how to
use social media tools in the context of collaboration. Students are already very
familiar with the use of social media to communicate with their friends; however,
they seem to lack knowledge regarding its uses in collaborationor they may tend
to use social media without in-depth consideration of effective ways to use it for
collaboration. Teachers could have set a certain level of requirement for online
collaboration and clarified the procedures of communication for them, in addition
to demonstrating more teaching presence for the instruction of online
collaboration itself.

Conclusion
This paper analyzed an international collaborative PBL based on the CoI
framework. The authors interviewed students to reveal how they used social media
during this collaboration. The data analysis provided some insights. Although
students are familiar with social media tools and have no technical problems in
using them, in most cases this ability did not enable them to enhance their social
presence with their overseas partners. In particular, first year students presence
does not seem to have been enhanced successfully. Besides conducting joint
English presentations, obtaining knowledge and methods for effective online
collaboration should also be considered a learning outcome. The necessity to
enhance cognitive presence in this context was also implied. It was shown that the
nature of online exchanges was affected by teacher guidance, that is, their
teaching presence, and that teachers have an important if indirect role in shaping
students online communication methods. In this study, the authors relied on
empirical analysis, and have not assessed the status of each students presence
objectively; this remains as a future challenge.
Finding more effective ways to support students online collaboration via offcampus SNSs and other tools will also be important future work. Determining
student characteristics in an online environment, such as the cyberasociality
proposed by Tufekci and Brashears (2014), may provide a clue to how teaching
presence should be manifested in this social media era. The authors would like to
continue to support students online collaboration and pursue more effective ways
of conducting this collaboration.

References
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson,
J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument:
Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multiinstitutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 133 136.
Blackmore, C. (2010). Social learning systems and communities of practice. New
York: Springer Verlag.
Bowen, J. A. (2012). Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college
classroom will improve student learning. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research
and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education:
Framework, principles, and guidelines.
San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century
skills. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students
learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235266.
Kageto, M. (2007). An instructional design for international collaborative learning
focusing on communication. Korea Society for Educational Technology
International Journal, 8(1), 5769.

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1624 ISSN 18822290

Kageto, M., Sato, S., & Kirkpatrick, G. (2012). How to enhance self-directed EFL
learning in an authentic international collaborative learning. International
Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 6(1), 76 84.
Kolb D. A. (1984), Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ling, L. (2007). Community of inquiry in an online undergraduate information

technology course. Journal of In formation Technology Education:
Research, 6(1), 153-168.
Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206235.
Sato, S., Kageto, M., & Kirkpatrick, G. (2013). Analysis of informal use of social
media in formal project-based learning. International Journal for
Educational Media and Technology, 7(1), 2637.
Tufekci, Z., & Brashears, M. E. (2014). Are we all equally at home socializing
online? Cyberasociality and evidence for an unequal distribution of disdain
for digitally-mediated sociality. Information, Communication & Society,
17(4), 486502.

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1624 ISSN 18822290