Improving Communication in Online Learning Systems

Abstract

In this paper, we study communication in online learning systems using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Quantitative methods provide the interaction statistics, while qualitative content analysis was used for categorization of the messages. It turns out that 20% of the active participants dominate the online learning interactions, and more than 80% are passive consumers. From the categorization, we learned that most of the communication is not related to learning, but to technical problems (26%), small talk(29%), sharing experience (16%), and encouragement (11%). Only 10% are related to the content. For improved communication, it is therefore important to use the right communication tools in the online learning systems. Especially, learning by content creation should be provided.

Full text

Improving Communication in Online Learning Systems
Godfrey Mayende1,2, Andreas Prinz1 and Ghislain Maurice N. Isabwe1
1Department of Information and Communication Technology, University of Agder, Grimstad, Norway
2Institute of Open, Distance and eLearning, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
Keywords: Online Learning, Communication, Collaborative Learning, Online Learning Systems.
Abstract: In this paper, we study communication in online learning systems using both quantitative and qualitative
research methods. Quantitative methods provide the interaction statistics, while qualitative content analysis
was used for categorisation of the messages. It turns out that 20% of the active participants dominate the
online learning interactions, and more than 80% are passive consumers. From the categorization, we learned
that most of the communication is not related to learning, but to technical problems (26%), small talk
(29%), sharing experience (16%), and encouragement (11%). Only 10% are related to the content. For
improved communication, it is therefore important to use the right communication tools in the online
learning systems. Especially, learning by content creation should be provided.
1 INTRODUCTION
Distance learning is a mode of study where students
have minimal face-to-face contact with their
facilitators; the learners learn on their own, away
from the institutions, most of the time (Aguti and
Fraser, 2006). Nevertheless, (Vygotsky, 1978)
argues that a person’s learning may be enhanced
through engagement with others. Use of computer
supported collaborative learning can offer
possibilities of students’ interactions (Muyinda et
al., 2015). In particular, technology can help
virtually form learning such that learners can learn
collaboratively (Mayende et al., 2015a). However,
motivating and sustaining effective student
interactions requires planning, coordination and
implementation of curriculum, pedagogy and
technology (Stahl et al., 2006).
Online learning systems often include a way to
support learner interaction, either by integrating with
Facebook or using an own system for that purpose.
We look into three large online courses with
communication support, namely Uncompromised
Life, Soulvana and Duality. All of them are paid
courses in the area of personal development, such
that we can assume high dedication from the side of
the learners. The communication possibilities in all
three courses were similar, even though one of the
courses uses Facebook, while the other two use a
separate platform.
Engagement in online learning systems is
achieved through active participation on these
communication platforms. It is our intention to find
out how to make learners more engaged in online
courses. We hope this will in turn bring about
meaningful learning. This is based on the view that
active participation in a course by communicating is
associated with better learning output.
The paper continues in section 2 with reviewing
the collaborative learning. Section 3 describes the
courses we have studied, while section 4 presents the
approaches and research methods. The finding are
presented in section 5 and good practice for online
course design in section 6. Finally, the paper is
concluded in section 7.
2 COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
Collaborative learning refers to instructional
methods that encourage students to work together to
find a common solution (Ayala and Castillo, 2008).
collaborative learning involves joint intellectual
effort by groups of students who are mutually
searching for meanings, understanding or solutions
through negotiation (Ashley, 2009; Stahl et al.,
2006). This approach is learner-centred rather than
teacher-centred; views knowledge as a social
construct, facilitated by peer interaction, evaluation
and cooperation; and learning as not only active but
300
Mayende, G., Prinz, A. and Isabwe, G.
Improving Communication in Online Learning Systems.
DOI: 10.5220/0006311103000307
In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 1, pages 300-307
ISBN: 978-989-758-239-4
Copyright ©2017 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

interactive (Vygotsky, 1978). This interaction is in
line with Anderson’s online learning framework
which argues that learning can be achieved through
student-teacher, student-student, and student-content
interactions (Anderson, 2003). This is also apt with
(Stahl et al., 2006) who asserts that learning takes
place through student-student interactions. Students
effectively develop deep learning when using
computer supported collaborative learning
(Ludvigsen and Mørch, 2009). Therefore, careful
integration of computer supported interaction can
heavily increase learning in online learning systems.
Collaborative learning is based on consensus
building through interaction by group members, in
contrast to competition. This can be very helpful for
distance learners, who are typically adults.
Collaborative activities are essential to encourage
information sharing, knowledge acquisition, and
skill development (Collison et al., 2000). Different
technology tools have been adopted for
collaboration in distance learning.
Collaborative learning hinges on the belief that
knowledge is socially constructed although each
learner has control over his/her own learning. Online
learning systems offer possibility for these
collaborations to be achieved through
communication among learners. Collaborative
learning is underpinned by the social constructivist
learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978). This is used in the
online courses studied and described in the section
below.
3 THREE ONLINE COURSES
We study three online courses, which are offered by
Mindvalley in the personal development area. They
are paid and use the Mindvalley platform for the
course material. For one course, the discussion is run
in a closed Facebook group, while for the other two
the Mindvalley discussion platform is used. For the
sake of this article, the discussion functionality in
Mindvalley is designed like Facebook.
Mindvalley is an online teaching company in the
personal development area. It focuses on life skills
that regular schooling does not cover, based on the
world's top personal growth authors and brands. The
Mindvalley teaching platform features a discussion
area structured like Facebook.
Facebook is a social media online platform built
with no perceived affordance for teaching and
learning. Nevertheless, many studies have used it for
teaching and learning and it is promising for
increasing interaction in groups (Li et al., 2016;
Mayende et al., 2014; Munguatosha et al., 2011).
3.1 Uncompromised Life
This course teaches everyday psychology to sort out
the day and night things that matter in life. The
course runs for eight weeks and learners are taught
eight transformations. The following elements are
discussed: focus and clarity of mind, mental models,
law of attraction, handling change, productivity,
daily habits, self-love, and self-confidence. This
course is purely run online using the Mindvalley
online learning system and the Mindvalley
discussion platform.
3.2 Duality
This Mindvalley course is related to the duality
between energy and reality. It runs for eight weeks
and teaches the following seven improvements:
getting fast answers, manifesting the life you want,
feeling happy now, stopping the fight against
yourself, accelerated healing, perfect relationships,
and living your ultimate life. This course is purely
run online using the Mindvalley online learning
system with discussions in a closed Facebook group.
3.3 Soulvana
Soulvana is not a course, but a subscription. It does
not have duration, but presents a new teaching every
week. Often, the teaching is related to other courses
in Mindvalley, or given by authors that are
connected to Mindvalley. Due to the format, the area
is broader than the other two courses. The
connection between the topics in Soulvana is the
focus on spirituality and its use to improve everyday
life. Just like the other two this course is run on the
Mindvalley platform including discussions.
4 APPROACHES AND METHODS
4.1 Communication in a Course
This paper uses three categories of course
communication: discussion, message and creation.
Discussion is a transient exchange of
information. The Cambridge dictionary defines
discussion as the activity in which people talk about
something and tell each other their ideas or opinions
(Dictionary, 2008). This communication can be both
verbal or non-verbal, sychronous or asychronous.
Improving Communication in Online Learning Systems
301

Discussions are often supported within online
learning systems using text based asychronous
discussion threads.
Message is a one-way information exchange.
The Cambridge dictionary defines a message as a
short piece of information that you give to a person
when you cannot speak to them directly (Dictionary,
2008). This communication can be both verbal or
non-verbal. Messages are important when
communicating to the students about something in
the online learning systems. A typical way to send
messages is email communication, or course
messages.
Creation is communication with the purpose of
creating something. An example is the creation of a
poem by a group of students. Here, the
communication does not directly lead to the end
results, but rather supports it. This part can be
available in online learning systems as co-creation of
artifacts, group projects, pair programming, debate
and wiki. In our three selected courses, creation was
not available.
4.2 Methods
The communications in the three online courses
were analysed from the autumn 2015 until January
2016. Uncompromised Life and Soulvana messages
were extracted from the Mindvalley platform, while
Duality course messages were extracted from
Facebook. Quantitative methods were used on the
three data sets to get the general statistics related to
communication and participation within these three
courses.
For a deeper understanding, content analysis was
done by manually categorizing the type of messages
being communicated. Then the different categories
were analysed statistically to understand what was
happening in the online interactions. The chosen
categories are based on an a-priori opinion of the
kind of messages in the set. This way, some
messages could fit more than one category. In these
cases, the best fit was chosen.
5 FINDINGS
This section describes the findings of the study. It is
divided into three parts; the general participation of
the online courses, interaction in the online courses
and communication needs for online learning
systems.
5.1 General Participation
This part describes the general statistics of the
findings from the three online courses, divided into
enrolments in the online courses, participation in the
discussions and discussion threads in the online
courses.
5.1.1 Enrolment in the Online Courses
The three online courses had large class sizes. Each
of the courses had at least 3,000 partcipants enrolled,
with Uncompromised Life, Soulvana and Duality
having 3,385, 3,464 and 3,000 participants,
respectively. The number for Duality is an educated
guess, as there was no accurate number of
participants in Duality available. These numbers are
comparable to enrolment of MOOCs (Meinel et al.,
2014; Salmon et al., 2015; Salmon et al., 2016). Far
less participated with sending at least one message
on the platforms, namely 625 (18%) for
Uncompromised Life, 638 (18%) for Soulvana and
350 (12%) for Duality. We see that most of the
participants were passive consumers of content. The
lower participation for Duality is probably due to the
manual enrolment into the Facebook group, while
the other two courses had automatic enrolment into
the Mindvalley discussion platform.
5.1.2 Participation in the Discussions
This shows the active participation on online course.
In this study active participation is communicating
by sending atleast one message. The percentage of
active participation in the courses were 18%, 18%
and 12% for Uncompromised life, Soulvana and
Duality respectively. The active participants were
also active in starting own discussion threads, and
not only answering to the existing threads. Own
discussion threads were started by 57%, 43% and
65% of the active participants in Uncompromised
Life, Soulvana and Duality, respectively.
The Pareto principle which maintains that 80%
of output from a given situation or system is
determined by 20% of input, applies for the
messages. This is so because twenty percent (20%)
of the active participants contributed almost 80% of
the total messages. Another interesting statistics is
the ratio of messages by the teaching team. On the
Mindvalley platform, the teachers contributed 18%
of the messages, in contrast to only 3% in the
Facebook group. Finally, there was always one very
active person, contributing around 10% of all the
messages alone.
CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
302

5.1.3 Analysis of Discussion Threads
Figure 1 shows the analysis of discussion threads.
We remember that threads were started by around
50% of the active participants. We found that the
threads are mostly discussions. They have on
average a relatively small number of messages in
them (5, 4, and 8), and their life span is short (2.5,
1.2, and 1.3 days).
Figure 1: Thread patterns in Online Courses.
This indicates that the platforms are not suited
for long-time interactions. In both platforms, threads
pop up higher in the ranking when they are active.
This way it is possible that few threads have a long
life (maximum 130 days with 195 messages in
Soulvana). For comparison, Uncompromised Life
has maximum 49 days with 83 messages, while
Duality has maximum 62 days with 26 messages.
That analysis indicates that there was minimal
learning taking place in the discussions, which is
examined more closely in the next part.
5.2 Interactions in the Online Courses
Interaction is very important in online learning
systems. Therefore, we want to understand the kind
of interactions going on in the online learning
systems. As explained in Section 4.2, we analysed
the content of the messages. Categories were defined
a priori and the messages were sorted into the
categories. Table 1 shows the result of the sorting.
A major part of the communication is geared around
technical problems (26%). These were questions
aimed at asking for help on how to use the online
learning system. It turned out that the discussion
Table 1: Interaction messages being communicated.
Major Category Sub category % %
Technical
problems
Technical questions 14% 26%
Answers to technical
questions 12%
Smalltalk
Introduction of
people 4%
29%
Welcomes 5%
Thanks 18%
General Smalltalk 2%
Content Content questions 4% 10%
Answers to content
questions 6%
Sharing
experience
Sharing experience 11% 16%
Agreement with
experiences 5%
Encouragement Encouragement 11% 11%
Others
Connection between
people 2%
8%
Create something
jointly 0%
Empty & unrelated 6%
platform was not a good place to handle such
problems, as the same questions and answers used to
turn up in regular intervals. It was impossible to find
out if the same question was asked before and it was
even difficult to find the correct answer if it was in
the same thread. Most of these interactions were
more of a message kind, and a discussion kind.
The second major category was smalltalk
messages contributing with 29%. Smalltalk is very
important in group dynamics since groups of these
students have to go through the different phases of
the group for it to be effective, from Tuckman five
stage model (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977).
Ten percent (10%) of the messages were related
to content: asking questions and getting responses to
the questions. The content interactions are closest to
the idea of learning by communication, as they
directly involve the material taught.
The second major learning related interaction is
the sharing experiences with 16% of the messages.
Sharing is important in personal growth courses, as
learning is exactly about own experiences. Still,
learning in this case happens outside the system, and
only the result are reflected in the platform.
In a similar way, encouragement helps with
motivation for the learning, but is not related to the
learning itself. Encouragement contributed 11% of
the messages.
Improving Communication in Online Learning Systems
303

The remaining messages are largely not
categorized, including empty and unrelated posts.
However, there are two categories that deserve
mention: there are 2% of messages related to
connection between people, mostly based on same
language and/or same location. This indicates that
people are interested in communication in their own
language and face to face. Finally, there are 13
messages where some participants attempted to
create something jointly, which is marginally related
to the total number of messages.
Considering only the teachers, the situation is as
follows: 15% content answers, 35% technical
answers, 16% encouragement, 10% thanks, and 16%
welcome plus few uncategorized posts.
The kind of interactions changed over time, this
is shown in the differences in focus from December
to January.
• technical questions 31% -> 22%
• smalltalk 21% -> 3%
• thanks 15% -> 21%
• content 5% -> 14%
• sharing 22% -> 31%
• rest 6% -> 9%
This indicates that the participants get more
focused and experienced with the platform which
brings a shift from smalltalk and technical questions
to content and sharing experience.
A general observation is that the interactions are
full of recurring questions, both related to content
and technical questions, sometimes even in the same
thread. This indicates that the systems are designed
for discussions, where it is not planned to go back to
previous arguments. In a discussion, the interactions
are only the background, and they do not have a life
on their own. This is in contrast to messages, which
are important on their own and need to be searchable
and easily accessible. This is even more important
with large numbers of participants.
5.3 Communication Needs
Based on the findings in the previous section and
knowing that engagement can be achieved through
communication, the following communication needs
are derived from the analysis. The three different
forms of communication (discussion, message and
creating) are used as a basis for the needs.
Announcements communicate course status and
progress. They can trigger learner engagement and
improve the feeling of teacher presence within the
online learning systems. This is basically a message
communication. The best way to implement
announcements is by using a message board, which
can be embedded in the users home page. The
systems analyzed in this paper do not properly
support this component, and use discussions instead.
Course administration information is related to
the course structure and in this way an equally vital
one-way communication message. The best way of
implementing them starts already outside the online
system with a clear structure and description of the
course. Then it can be shown with clean pages
followed by good help pages. The systems analyzed
here again used discussions for this component,
which is not appropriate.
Course material refers to the content of the
course, including text, videos, and audios. This is
message communication, and as the course
administration information, a clear structure that is
visible in the course is the best way to implement it.
This component is very important because it feeds
into other communication types of discussion and
creation. The main point here is to have a good
description of the activities that connects well to the
course materials, which can motivate learners to
engage with course materials. This is further
discussed in the next section.
Sharing, support, and encouragement can be
done in both small and big groups because they help
in motivating learners in the online learning systems.
This is a discussion, where the result is created
during the interaction, and the thread itself is
auxiliary. It is important to establish a code of
conduct for the discussion groups, including privacy
(non-disclosure). Dunbar's number suggests that 150
is the cognitive limit to the number of people with
whom one can maintain stable social relationships
(Dunbar, 2010). These are relationships in which an
individual knows who each person is and how each
person relates to every other person. Above that
number, groups will give a feeling of anonymity,
which could help to share some more embarrassing
information (Gonçalves et al., 2011). For group
discussions in your course, a group size of five
would be more effective (Mayende et al., 2015a).
Discussion and clarification are used when
dealing with course content. These are discussion
interactions and they do not produce results, but are
just auxiliary. If well planned and organised they
lead to changes in the content and learning. Usually,
if they are triggered by activities around the content
they can enhance engagement and learning.
CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
304

6 GOOD PRACTICES FOR
ONLINE COURSE DESIGN
6.1 Communication in Online Learning
Systems
Based on the findings we suggest ways to improve
communication in online learning systems. There are
several areas where learning happens in online or
traditional settings, which are not currently used in
the studied courses. These kinds of communication
are related to more active modes of learning, like
discussion groups, practice by doing and teaching
others/immediate use as shown in the figure 2.
Figure 2: Learning Pyramid.
It is important to be clear that the modes of
communication used here are most often not
discussions. We collect the recommendations below:
Individual content allows users to store content
related to their learning, probably somewhere in the
user area related to the course. It is not limited to
individually complete questionnaires, quizzes, and
reflections. These are in the category of (one-way)
message, but here they belong to the user.
Joint content is content that is created by groups
of learners, maybe all learners in a course. It helps to
create content jointly; good examples are wiki pages
and google docs. These fall into the category of
creation, and do not exist in the studied online
learning systems. A discussion might be associated
to the joint content.
Learning groups are important for dedicated and
meaningful learning. These groups are connected to
a joint task, for example discussing a statement or
creating something. In terms of communication, this
is a combination of discussion and joint or
individual content. The discussion is used in order to
create, but disappears later. It is also possible that
nothing is created apart from learning.
Mentoring (coaching) for groups provides input
to the individual or the group process. This is very
important for learning groups as the groups tend to
get stuck once in a while. By mediating learning, the
mentors can provoke learners to discuss issues that
they would not have discussed otherwise. The
mentoring often does not result in an artifact, but it
may contribute to an improved artifact.
Peer-to-peer evaluation and assessment. In a
learning setting, peer-to-peer evaluation is a
feedback message mechanism supporting learning. It
can be embedded into the learning process at several
places, not only at the end. Peer assessment can be
based on groups or on individuals. When well
embeded within the course structure improved
learning can be achieved (Mayende et al., 2015b;
Mayende et al., 2017).
6.2 Synchronous Communication and
Physical Contact
Communication in online learning often lends itself
to an asynchronous mode, because learners may
have different time zones and different times to
access the learning environment. There is a general
trend to rely more on virtual connection than
physical ones (Turkle, 2012). However, from a
learning perspective, this is not the best option. For
improved learning, also synchronous communication
should be considered.
Mehrabian found that 7% of any message is
conveyed through words, 38% through certain vocal
elements, and 55% through nonverbal elements
(facial expressions, gestures, posture, etc)
(Mehrabian, 1971). Typical discussion forums like
in Mindvalley and Facebook use only the 7% part,
and therefore miss out much on the other
components.
At the University of Agder online courses, we
arrange a physical meeting with the course
participants which is then used as a basis for the
asynchronous and online communication. This
improves engagement a lot. Equally at Makerere
University we arrange physical meetings of two
weeks twice a semester which improves engagement
when studying the courses.
Experiences with lecture streaming and capture
at University of Agder indicate that the (perceived)
live event of a lecture is much more valuable than
the playback. In particular, this leads to the fact that
students follow what is said more closely. It seems
that the important aspect is the synchronous
communication, and in particular the life presence of
the students (not necessarily the teacher). Based on
Improving Communication in Online Learning Systems
305

this experience, it is not a good idea to run video
lectures as non-timed playback, but rather organize
several time slots where the students meet at the
same time.
Life communication in a large group of
participants (more than 10) will typically be
restricted to statistical interaction (raise your hands)
and can be implemented using Kahoot
(https://getkahoot.com/). However, group processes
in learning (learning by discussing) are typically
connected to synchronous meetings. These have to
be in smaller groups (around 5).
Of course, after knowing that synchronous
communication is good, and physical meetings are
even better for learning, the question is how to
facilitate that for an online learning system. Here are
some suggestions.
Synchronous communication can be planned into
a course by setting time slots for some of the video
lectures. Typically, two time slots per day are
enough to cater for all time zones. It is essential in
this case to embed also synchronous communication
into the video itself, in particular activities for the
students, like polls. Moreover, in many cases online
courses have a geographical clustering of the
participants, such that occasional face to face
meetings are possible. A clever move in this context
is to motivate the students to invite their friends and
family into the course such that physical meetings
can work out more easily.
Of course, synchronous communication has to be
planned for in the course design, such that as a result
the retention rate for the learning really is improved
above the one-way messages.
Finally, introducing synchronous communication
would also introduce a need to teach about how to
handle such discussions in a learning context.
Effective work in groups needs special processes to
check into the group (presenting your personal
status), both in a face-to-face and in an online
synchronous setting.
7 CONCLUSION
From the online communication patterns identified
from the online learning courses studied in this
paper, the following conclusions have been arrived
at. First, in online learning systems, the first message
to be sent is the most difficult one. So it might be a
good idea to focus on the first message specifically.
Second, 20% of the participants contribute about
80% to the message traffic. This means there has to
be enough traffic in total to allow students to be
active even if they are not among the most active
20%. Third, Facebook and similar systems are
optimized towards discussions with short time
horizon and small number of exchanged messages.
They are not equally good at other forms of
communication like one-way communication or co-
creation. Fourth, a good communication for learning
needs both a joint discussion area for all learners,
and a learning group communication area for smaller
learning groups. Fifth, synchronous communication
should also be emphasized in the platforms and
more importantly in the course design.
Creation can lead to meaningful learning within
learning groups. Many online learning discussion
platforms are built in a Facebook like setup, which
makes it difficult for learners to create knoweldge. A
proper way to support co-creation of artifacts and of
knowledge will advance online learning systems a
lot.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work reported in this paper was supported by
the DELP project (funded by NORAD) and the
ADILA Project (funded by UiA).
REFERENCES
Aguti, J. N., & Fraser, W. J. (2006). Integration of
Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in
the Distance Education Bachelor of Education
Programme, Makerere University, Uganda. Online
Submission.
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of Interaction in Distance
Education: Recent Developments and Research
Questions. In M. Moore & G. Anderson (Eds.),
Handbook of Distance Education. (pp. 129-144). NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ashley, D. (2009). A Teaching with Technology White
paper. Collaborative Tools. Retrieved on November 1,
2014 from
http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/technology/whitepapers/
CollaborationTools_Jan09.pdf.
Ayala, G., & Castillo, S. (2008). Towards computational
models for mobile learning objects. Paper presented at
the Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technology in
Education, 2008. WMUTE 2008. Fifth IEEE
International Conference on.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R.
(2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective
strategies for moderators: ERIC.
Dictionary, C. (2008). Cambridge Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary: PONS-Worterbucher, Klett Ernst Verlag
GmbH.
CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
306

Dunbar, R. (2010). How many friends does one person
need?: Dunbar's number and other evolutionary
quirks: Faber & Faber.
Gonçalves, B., Perra, N., & Vespignani, A. (2011).
Modeling users' activity on twitter networks:
Validation of dunbar's number. PloS one, 6(8),
e22656.
Li, Q., Lau, R. W., Popescu, E., Rao, Y., Leung, H., &
Zhu, X. (2016). Social Media for Ubiquitous Learning
and Adaptive Tutoring [Guest editors' introduction].
IEEE MultiMedia, 23(1), 18-24.
Ludvigsen, S., & Mørch, A. (2009). Computer-supported
collaborative learning: Basic concepts, multiple
perspectives, and emerging trends, in The International
Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Edition, edited by B.
McGaw, P. Peterson and E. Baker, Elsevier (in press).
Mayende, G., Isabwe, G. M. N., Muyinda, P. B., & Prinz,
A. (2015b). Peer Assessment Based Assignment to
Enhance Interactions in Online Learning Groups.
Paper presented at the International Conference on
Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), 20-24
September 2015, Florence, Italy.
Mayende, G., Muyinda, P. B., Isabwe, G. M. N.,
Walimbwa, M., & Siminyu, S. N. (2014). Facebook
Mediated Interaction And Learning In Distance
Learning At Makerere University Paper presented at
the 8th International Conference on e-Learning, 15 –
18 July, Lisbon, Portugal.
Mayende, G., Prinz, A., Isabwe, G. M. N., & Muyinda, P.
B. (2015a). Supporting Learning Groups in Online
Learning Environment. Paper presented at the CSEDU
2015 - 7th International Conference on Computer
Supported Education, Lisbon, Portugal.
Mayende, G., Prinz, A., Isabwe, G. M. N., & Muyinda, P.
B. (2017). Learning Groups for MOOCs Lessons for
Online Learning in Higher Education. In M. E. Auer,
D. Guralnick, & J. Uhomoibhi (Eds.), Interactive
Collaborative Learning: Proceedings of the 19th ICL
Conference - Volume 1 (pp. 185-198). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages (Vol. 8):
Wadsworth Belmont, CA.
Meinel, C., Willems, C., Renz, J., & Staubitz, T. (2014).
Reflections on enrollment numbers and success rates
at the openhpi mooc platform. Proceedings of the
European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, 101-106.
Munguatosha, G. M., Muyinda, P. B., & Lubega, J. T.
(2011). A social networked learning adoption model
for higher education institutions in developing
countries. On the Horizon, 19(4), 307-320.
Muyinda, P., Mayende, G., & Kizito, J. (2015).
Requirements for a Seamless Collaborative and
Cooperative MLearning System. In L.-H. Wong, M.
Milrad, & M. Specht (Eds.), Seamless Learning in the
Age of Mobile Connectivity (pp. 201-222): Springer
Singapore.
Salmon, G., Gregory, J., Lokuge Dona, K., & Ross, B.
(2015). Experiential online development for educators:
The example of the Carpe Diem MOOC. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 542-556.
Salmon, G., Pechenkina, E., Chase, A. M., & Ross, B.
(2016). Designing Massive Open Online Courses to
take account of participant motivations and
expectations. British Journal of Educational
Technology.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006).
Computer-supported collaborative learning: An
historical perspective. Cambridge handbook of the
learning sciences, 2006.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of
small-group development revisited. Group &
Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more
from technology and less from each other: Basic
books.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development
of higher psychological processes. Cambridge::
Harvard University Press.
Improving Communication in Online Learning Systems
307