Andreas Rio Adriyanto, Aria Ar Razi, Sri Soedewi
pp. 105 – 134, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-066-005)
Abstract
This study explores the interaction design of collaborative learning in blended design studio courses, where collaborative digital platforms augment co-located teamwork. These platforms function as designed interaction environments, shaping how students communicate, co-create, and express their ideas. Using a mixed-methods approach; observation, User Experience Questionnaire, and focus group interviews, the study proposes the Blended Collaborative Learning (BCL) model. BCL builds upon Harasim’s Online Collaborative Learning, integrates the Community of Inquiry model’s presence dimensions, and aligns with the technological pedagogical content-knowledge (TPACK) model. Collaborative interaction is analyzed across three stages; Idea Generating, Idea Organizing, and Intellectual Convergence, each expressed through distinct modes (e.g., democratic vs. autocratic, cooperative vs. collaborative, consensus vs. voting). The findings show that platform affordances support multimodal communication and influence the quality of collaboration. BCL positions blended learning as a designed educational experience that combines digital interfaces, embodied presence, and pedagogical objective.
Keywords: Blended Collaborative Learning, Interaction Design, Online Collaborative Platforms, Design Studio Courses.
References
1. Shiva A.: Transition from face-to-face to online instruction during the covid-19 pandemic: An exploration of Iranian EFL university lecturers’ attitudes. Research Square. (2021) https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-658850/v1.
2. Muhammad H., Qaiser A.K., and Fatima T.: Challenges faced by the teachers and students in online learning during covid-19. Cakrawala Pendidikan, Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 41(1), 55-70. (2022) https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v41i1.35411.
3. Sri S., and Sukono S.: Analysis of factors affecting lecturer performance at a university during the covid-19 pandemic using logistic regression and genetic algorithms. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 17(2), 542-561. (2022) https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i2.6694.
4. Nurul H.D, Kemala P., and Djamalludin A.: Mediation role of work life balance on the effect of perceived organization support on lecturer job satisfaction at private university in Jakarta during covid-19 pandemic. Asian Social Work Journal (ASWJ), 8(1), 1-7. (2023) https://doi.org/10.47405/aswj.v8i1.241.
5. Siregar, N. and Manurung, S.L.: Analysis of the learning motivation of students in mathematics education online learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, AISTSSE 2020, 1-6. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1819/1/012069.
6. Mahfud J., Nasikhin, and Silviatul H.: Issues in the implementing of online learning in islamic higher education during the covid-19 pandemic. Ta’dib Journal, 25(1), 33-46. (2022) https://doi.org/10.31958/jt.v25i1.5365.
7. Muhammad I., Betty K., Yuyun Y., and Sri A.W.: Challenges during the pandemic: Use of e-learning in mathematics learning in higher education. Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(2), 147-158. (2020) https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v9i2.p147-158.
8. Hera H.S.S., Sri H., and Ferisa P.U.: Student independence in overcoming the impact of covid-19: classical online guidance based on character values. Cakrawala Pendidikan, Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 41(1), 83-96. (2022) https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v41i1.43943.
9. Stefanie M.I.B., and Ute K.: North to the future: A new asynchronous delivery of the classic “flora class” at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 16(1), 343–356. (2022) https://doi.org/10.17348/jbrit.v16.i1.1237.
10. Long M., and Chei S.L.: Evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning using the ARCS model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1-12. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12579.
11. Denny I., Budi H., and Eni F.F.: Blended Learning in Elementary Schools. ICIGR Conference Proceedings, KnE Social Sciences, 318-329. (2022) https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v7i10.11234.
12. María L.F., Rosana M.R., María V.C.F., and Yolanda R.C.: Sex education in the spotlight: What is working? Systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2555), 1-31. (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052555.
13. Lee S.S.: Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedelus, 134 (3), 52-59. (2005) https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526054622015.
14. Sri S., Fendy S., Praptini Y., Ratna W., and Yurilla E.M.: Online learning satisfaction in higher education: what are the determining factors? Cakrawala Pendidikan, Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 41(2), 351-364. (2022) https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v41i2.35724.
15. Sara D.L., Sara F.A., José-Antonio M.M. and Myriam A.V.: Effectiveness of a collaborative platform for the mastery of competencies in the distance learning modality during covid-19. Sustainability, 13 (5854), 1-14. (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115854.
16. Zainab A., Zinan Z., Oluwatomisin O., Luke S., and Pamela J.W.: Case study on user experience bootcamps with teens to co-design real-time online safety interventions. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, 1-8. (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3503563.
17. Dagmar S., Petr F., and Libor C.: Redesigning the process of learning in a collaborative virtual classroom. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. (2022, 4-6 July) https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2022.0901.
18. Qingchuan L., Jiaxin Z., Xin X., and Yan L.: How shared online whiteboard supports online collaborative design activities: A social interaction perspective. In Markopoulos, E., Goonetilleke, R.S., Ho, A.G., & Luximon, Y. (Eds.). Advances in creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship and communication of design. Switzerland: Springer Nature, 285–293. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80094-9_34.
19. Gökçe E.B., Olof T., Peter R., and Eva E.: Teaching Design of Technologies for Collaborative Interaction in Physical, Digital, and Hybrid Spaces. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal – IxD&A, N.58, pp. 53 – 71. (2023) https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-058-002.
20. Andreas R.A.: Digital Interaction Model of Design Field’s Online Learning in Indonesia. Doctoral Dissertation, Institut Teknologi Bandung. (2022)
21. Matthew J.K., and Punya M.: What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. J Educ Comput Res., 32(2), 131-52. (2005) https://doi.org/10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV.
22. Matthew J. K. and Punya M.: Teachers Learning Technology by Design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102. (2005) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2005.10784518.
23. Maria E. and Rickey M.: Teacher candidates’ perception of acquiring TPACK in the digital age through an innovative educational technology masters program. In: Bastiaens JT, editor. Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning, 581-98. (2019)
24. Sally J.B.: Adaptation and Acceptance in Online Course Design from Four-Year College and University Instructors: An Analysis using Grounded Theory. Boise State University Theses and Dissertations, 1241 (2017) https://doi.org/10.18122/B28T4W.
25. Linda H.: Learning theory and online technologies. New York: Routledge. (2012)
26. Ana L.V.G: The effects of online collaborative learning (OCL) on student achievement and engagement. IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education, 10(3), 31-49. (2022) https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.10.3.02.
27. Noga M.N and Miri S.: The impact of an online collaborative learning program on students’ attitude towards technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(5), 621-637. (2017) https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1376336.
28. Kyungmee L.: A paradigm shift rhetoric and theory-practice gap in online higher education: A case study of an open university. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning, 251-259. (2016) https://doi.org/10.54337/nlc.v10.8870.
29. Randy G., Terry A. and Walter A.: Critical inquiry in a text-based environment. Computer Conferencing in Higher Education, The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87-10. (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.
30. Zehra A., Randy G. & Yasar O.: Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(6), 65–83. (2009) https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765.
31. Xin C.: An Integrative Review of the Effects of Social Presence on Distance Education. Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (2014) http://hdl.handle.net/10919/71298.
32. Ruzanna T.; Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Learning Teams (VLTs) in DistanceEducation. Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation – Dissertations, 61. (2013) https://surface.syr.edu/idde_etd/61.
33. G.C. Smith.: Introduction. In: Bill M., editor. Designing interactions. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. (2007)
34. Marc H.: Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. San Rafael (CA): Morgan & Claypool Publishers. (2010)
35. Stephen P.A.: Seductive interaction design: Creating playful, fun, and effective user experiences. Berkeley (CA): New Riders (2011)
36. Martin S., Andreas H., and Jörg T. : Applying the user experience questionnaire (UEQ) in different evaluation scenarios. In Aaron M. (Eds.). Design, user experience, and usability. Theories, methods, and tools for designing the user experience. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8517, 383-392. Springer International Publishing. (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07668-3_37.
37. John W.C:. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publishing. (2013)
38. Michael D.: Defining generations: Where millennials end and generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. (2019) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/.
39. James M., and Sunni B.: Gamestorming – A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers and changemakers. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2010)
40. Jean L., and Etienne W.: Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1991)
41. Carsten D., Ahmed M., and Sujieban S.: Virtual whiteboards & digital post-its incorporating internet-based tools for ideation into engineering courses. SEFI 2021, 49th Annual Conference Berlin. (2021)
42. Joachim K.R.: Creative online collaboration: A special challenge for co-creation. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 1835–1836. (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09875-6.
43. Osipovskaya E.A., and Lukač D.: The visual online tools for collaborative learning and icebreaker activities. RUDN Journal of Informatization in Education, 19 (4), 351-359. (2022) https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8631-2022-19-4-351-359.
44. Gina C., Mark A., and Daniel P.: VirtualCase: A tool for online collaborative learning. CHI EA ’03: CHI ’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 886-887. (2003) https://doi.org/10.1145/765891.766050.
45. Katarina P.G., and Jana M.: Critical and higher order thinking in online threaded discussions in the Slovak context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1), 1-15. (2009) https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i1.589.
46. Beatrice J.M.N., Jia Y.H., Yongbeom K., Kenzo A.T., Jia Y.C., Yulin L., and Fun M.F.: Supporting social and learning presence in the revised community of inquiry framework for hybrid learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(2), 708–714. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00842.
47. Paul S.I., and Peter S.: An Online Learning Collaboratory to Address Multidisciplinary Learning Challenges at Scale. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal – IxD&A, N.33, 11-32. (2017) https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-033-001.
48. Donald A.S.: The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Basic Books, Inc. (1983)
49. Catherine C.: Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 15–34. (2017) https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096
50. Ulf-Daniel E.: Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open educational practices. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2), 1-10. (2011) https://doi.org/10.61468/jofdl.v15i2.64
51. Catherine C. and Iain M.: Conceptualising OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical literature in open educational practices. Open Praxi, 10(2), 127–143. (2018) https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.825
52. Bronwyn H.: Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources. Educational Technology. 55(4), 3–13. (2015)