Content uploaded by Turgay Erdemir
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Turgay Erdemir on Jan 15, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20
Interactive Learning Environments
ISSN: 1049-4820 (Print) 1744-5191 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20
Online project based learning via cloud computing:
exploring roles of instructor and students
Ünal Çakiroğlu & Turgay Erdemir
To cite this article: Ünal Çakiroğlu & Turgay Erdemir (2019) Online project based learning via
cloud computing: exploring roles of instructor and students, Interactive Learning Environments,
27:4, 547-566, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1489855
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1489855
Published online: 09 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 289
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Online project based learning via cloud computing: exploring
roles of instructor and students
Ünal Çakiroğlu
a
and Turgay Erdemir
b
a
Fatih Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional Department, Karadeniz Technical University,
Trabzon, Turkey;
b
Ereğli Vocational School, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
ABSTRACT
This one semester case study intended to explore the roles of the
instructor and students in design activities based on project based
learning via cloud computing technology. Participants were 13 pre-
service computer teachers enrolled in an internet programming course
at faculty of education. Online course records, interviews and
questionnaires were used to collect data. The data were analyzed via
qualitative techniques. Results suggested that cloud computing
facilitates planning, collaboration, and communication and also supports
individual learning in online project based design activities. The
instructor exhibited the roles of guidance, technical support,
administrate and communicate. Students’roles were found as
cooperation, coordination, communication, leadership, practice, effort
provide in project based activities. The results are hoped to provide
insights about the roles of the instructor and students in online project
based design activities. Along with the study findings, some implications
were discussed for using cloud computing effectively in project based
learning.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 9 June 2017
Accepted 13 June 2018
KEYWORDS
Online learning; project
based learning; cloud
computing; collaborative
learning; instructor and
student roles
Introduction
As online learning settings have grown tremendously in higher education, many efforts are ongoing
to make students active in the educational experience. Educators try to realize Dewey’s“learning by
doing”approach (Barron et al., 1998) in which students are at the center of the knowledge construc-
tion. In this sense, project based learning (PBL) has attracted increasing attention as one of the
methods which educators should put extra effort to employ in online learning. In this line, Lou
and Kim MacGregor (2004) claimed that if potential of PBL can be transferred to online learning,
quality learning outcomes may be derived from online environments. In online PBL; electronic
boards, email and online chatting provide opportunities for learners to share their ideas and to co-
construct knowledge. Heo, Lim, and Kim (2010) pointed out that most of these opportunities for lear-
ners provide to interact with each other with fewer temporal and spatial limitations, they might
obtain more productive outcomes from project work.
Researchers suggest using appropriate media to provide more interactive environments to
support PBL in different educational experiences (Heo et al., 2010; Ravitz & Blazevski, 2014). While
Kennedy and Duffy(2004) reported that some communication and cooperation problems were
faced due to the physical distance in implementing online PBL, Kalaycı(2008) revealed that some
PBL applications have been partly implemented with e-mails, forums, sharing or searching tools. In
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Ünal Çakiroğlu cakiroglu@ktu.edu.tr Fatih Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional
Department, Karadeniz Technical University, Sogutlu, Akcaabat, Trabzon 61335, Turkey
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
2019, VOL. 27, NO. 4, 547–566
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1489855
addition, Ravitz and Blazevski (2014) pointed out that much time is needed for instructor to prepare
for PBL activities if the online infrastructures are not appropriate. At this point, researchers claimed
that CC may provide meaningful learning via online medium (Koch, Assunção, Cardonha, & Netto,
2016) and new teaching methods for activities with the components for data storing and applications
(Çakıroğlu & Erdemir, 2013). Since research on the use of CC in the field of education is limited
(Ibrahim, Salleh, & Misra, 2015), new evidences are still required to put forth its potentials.
Online project based applications
PBL allows students to investigate questions, propose hypotheses and explanations, discuss their
ideas, challenge the ideas of others, and try out new ideas. (Marx et al., 1994; Rivet & Krajcik,
2004). In order to achieve successful PBL applications, Blumenfeld et al. (1991) described some
activities that students actively participate in asking and refining questions, discussing ideas, plan-
ning for problem solving, gathering information, drawing conclusions, and communicating. In
online PBL activities webquests, emails, blogs, forums, social networking may be used to search
for information, share or change ideas, work in collaboration, or cooperation. Garrison (2007)
claimed that if media supports online learning tasks, students can explore and construct knowl-
edge and propose solutions. Morales, Bang, and Andre (2013) found that PBL can be effective
with peer-mentored learning even minimal teacher guidance in a virtual learning environment.
In another study, Ching and Hsu (2013) implemented project-based learning in an online learning
environment. The results indicated that students’participations in the peer feedback contributed
positively to their project-based learning experiences. In addition, in an online project-based dis-
cussion activity, Wu and Hou (2014) showed that the behavioral patterns of learners exhibited
more diversified operations and participants to focus on the discussion task. In a more recent
study Shih and Tsai (2017) investigated students’perceptions about online project-based learning
in a flipped marketing course and found that the implementations of projects enhanced students’
learning, motivation, interest and teamwork.
However, some challenges were addressed in online PBL activities. Paloffand Pratt (2001)
addressed that only reading texts written by peers may not help students. van Rooij (2009) identified
that learners may also struggle with managing their time effectively. Understanding the project
scope, locating resources, reflecting on the ideas with peers, setting priorities, and co-constructing
products during project work were also limited in online PBL applications (Heo et al., 2010; Lou,
2004). In addition, Wang, Pool, Harris, and Wangemann (2001) indicated that instructors cannot
monitor the process within low level technologies. To that end, online instructors need to follow
the learning processes, support learners and provide appropriate feedback. The setting also
should allow a certain amount of interaction for carrying out team project work.
In this sense, in online settings, instructors and students’roles become more important to
develop interactions for meaningful learning. In online learning instructors’roles are generally dis-
cussed in four dimensions: pedagogical, social, managerial and technical (Maor, 2003). Pedagogi-
cally, instructors deliver the content, provide feedback, and evaluate students’learning. Socially,
instructors provide interpersonal communication, and appropriate classroom climate with
keeping the communication flowing. Using the tools for facilitating the process is also considered
in the roles of instructors. The managerial role includes coordinating online setting components
regarding the course structure. On the other hand, students generally act in cognitive and
social domains. Individually or collaboratively students are responsible for their learning in
which they access the information and construct knowledge. Researchers taking main com-
ponents of online learning into consideration, modeled interactions in the instructional process.
For instance, one popular model is community of inquiry in which Garrison and Arbaugh
(2007)defined the interactions to create meaningful learning experience through social, cognitive
and teaching presences. In this model, instructors design and organize the learning experience to
construct the learning community (cognitive presence), encourage the communication among
548 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
students or between the teacher and the students (social presence). Also, instructors implement
various ways in the context of the subject matter to expertise through the variety forms of instruc-
tion (teaching presence). In addition, Moore (1990) in his theory of transactional distance posits
that in distance learning, the nature of the transaction developed between teachers and students
includes three factors: dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy. The theoretical views about the
online instructional processes suggest providing meaningful interactions among the basic com-
ponents as summarized in Figure 1.
In this circumstance, Bernard and Lundgren-Cayrol (2010) suggested using some advanced tools
in implementing online PBL to provide quality as face-to-face instruction. Thus, there is a need to
design useful projects through appropriate settings. In this study, we hypothesize that some novel
technologies such as cloud computing may be used to overcome the limitations on knowledge
co-construction in the PBL activities.
Cloud computing in education
Cloud Computing supports working individually or cooperatively online. Some organizations pre-
sented online learning settings based on CC such as Office365 (Microsoft) education package or
Google Apps (Google) education release. Kittle and Hicks (2009) reported that students can work
on a document simultaneously and modify the artifacts through CC cooperatively. CC also supports
interaction between students and teachers through flexible learning scenarios, facilitates the com-
munication and sharing among students (Desai, Patel, & Patel, 2016; González-Martínez, Bote-
Lorenzo, Gómez-Sánchez, & Cano-Parra, 2015). For example, Wood (2011) used Google Docs, in col-
laborative writing activities of undergraduates’laboratory reports. Blood (2011) carried out Google
Spreadsheet to define behaviors of students at a high school. Similarly, Bonham (2011) used
Google Speadsheet and Forms in an experiment to collect and graph data points from students
via filling the forms.
In this study, we used Office365 education package with its services required in PBL applications.
Office365 as a CC technology has some affordances including access, share and use the documents
and applications with the following services of Office in Education 2013.
.Exchange Online has e-mail, calendar, contacts, outlook, and unlimited storage services.
.Lync Online has instant messaging, screen sharing, and white board for instant communication
services, online meetings including audio, video and web conferencing.
.SharePoint Online has sharing services for working with others, organizing projects and teams, and
finding people and information. It provides opportunity to access and edit documents online.
Figure 1. Interactions in online learning.
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 549
SkyDrive service provides to store and share data. Web sites can be created and published in a
short time using ready-to-use templates.
.Office Web Apps ensures data protection by working simultaneously with desktop applications
such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook.
Since interactions and roles of learners and teachers become prominent in re-shaping PBL set-
tings, we focused on these roles in order to gain quality outcomes from online PBL settings. With
regard to the affordances of Office365, this study intended to use its features in online PBL
settings.
The following research questions guided to the study:
1. To what extent does Office365 as a cloud computing technology contribute on online project
based learning?
2. What are the roles of students and instructor in the project based learning activities performed via
cloud computing?
Method
This case study was implemented to provide in-depth investigations on actual events, cases and
groups. Descriptive data were used to interpret the potential of CC and the roles of students and
instructor in the online setting.
Participants
Totally 13 pre-service teachers (7 males and 6 females) enrolled in an online instructional technol-
ogies program of a public university in Turkey were participated to the study. They were separated
into the groups of three or four to work collaboratively on a design project.
Procedure
The study was carried out along 8 week period including PBL activities in Internet Based Program-
ming course. In first two weeks, Office365 was introduced to students. Users and groups were
assigned and the students were informed about the projects and evaluation process. During the
instructional process, students were asked to get screen shots when they use Office365 and its com-
ponents. Instructor and the students in the groups interacted via web conferencing at three lesson
hours per week. The students asked questions and presented their weekly work and the instructor
provided evaluations and feedback. The weekly activity in the instructional process was briefly illus-
trated in Figure 2.
Each group developed web sites collaboratively using the affordances of SharePoint Online
service. The project topics are presented in Table 1.
Data collection tools
The current study includes three types of data sources to provide triangulation. Triangulation is a typi-
cally strategy for improving the validity and reliability of findings, and also it supports the accuracy of
analysis results (Patton, 1990). It plays a prominent role in eliciting data and suggesting conclusions.
As data are drawn from multiple sources, triangulation provides most insights within the results
(Denzin, 1978). That is why, it is suggested in many qualitative studies (Bekhet & Zauszniewski,
2012; Golafshani, 2003; Hammond & Wiriyapinit, 2005). The data collection tools and their purpose
of use were summarized in Table 2.
Interview: Questions were organized in line with the expert opinions to reveal the potential of
CC in PBL.
550 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
Screenshots: “Screenshot transcript form”was used to analyze the screenshots. The form consisted
of items such as progress, observed activity, and what the student is doing.
Open Ended Questions: At the end of the instructional process, open ended questions were directed to
examine whether the projects were acted within the general principles of PBL stages.
Data analysis
The qualitative data were analyzed via content analysis by transcribing the interviews. To develop
categories and codes, two coders read the students’responses for interview questions carefully.
Since segmenting the data into meaningful units is important for accuracy of the analysis, during
Table 2. Data collection tools.
Data Collection
Tools
Research Question1 Research Question2
Determining the potential of CC in online
PBL activities
Determining instructor roles
via CC
Determining student roles
via CC
Open Ended
Questions
✓✓
Screenshots ✓✓
Interviews ✓✓✓
Table 1. Project topics and purposes of the groups.
Groups Topic area Topic Purpose
1 Education / Science and
technology
Ecosystem and matter
cycle
Developing course material for elementary school students about
ecosystem and matter cycles.
2 Education / TR
Revolution History
World War I Developing course material for elementary school students on
World War I
3 Tourism Tourism values of
Trabzon province
Introducing Trabzon province and its touristic sights
4 Tourism Kayseri province travel
guide
Introducing the historical places and natural beauties in Kayseri
province and providing information about them
Figure 2. The instructional process with project based learning.
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 551
initial coding significant points in the data are identified (Taylor & Gibbs, 2017). First, a synthesis of the
raw data from the interview was carried out, the meaningful units (sentence or groups of sentences)
of the data were identified and coded (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). The relationships, similarities and differ-
ences among the codes were examined and classified, and then the themes were constructed. The
codes were presented with the frequencies. Sometimes more than one meaningful unit might be
derived from the statements.
For instance, one of the meaningful statements of S10 is defined and significant points are
addressed in the statement: “…When I had a problem in my design, one of our group mates set con-
nection through Lync and solved the problems thanks to its screen control features. I used Lync
screen sharing feature to present my homework and get feedback …” Two codes are generated as
in Table 3.
Screenshots were analyzed through the codes of the interview data in order to define how the
students and the instructor acted in the process. The behaviors shown on the screenshot were pre-
sented as raw data when discussing about the codes from the interview.
Results
Results from the qualitative data were presented in line with the research problems.
Contribution of CC technology for online project based design activities
Students’perspectives from the interviews and open ended questions were interpreted together in
order to reveal the contribution of CC to PBL. The basic stages of PBL were taken into consideration in
this analysis.
Defining problem and the roles
Table 4 summarizes the findings obtained during the process of setting the groups and determining
the topics along the PBL process.
The majority of the students (83%) stated that they created the groups with friends who they
thought they would get on well with. More than half of the students reported that they used Lync
Online meetings to decide about the topic of their web site and the goals. 92% of the students
could present project goals clearly in the documents they created in the Team Site.
Table 3. Code generated from example statement.
Thema Code
Contribution of CC/ Creating the project Shared data with my friends
Instructor role/ Guidance Provided feedback about the project
Table 4. Project Groups and views about determining the topics.
Did not
exist
Partly
existed Existed
Actions f f f Selected student views
Easily found the project topic
on the web
2 3 8 S3: “We determined the topic in accordance with the
guidance of instructor and we recorded our decisions on a
Word document through Lync.”
S13: “We wanted to be in the same group with our friends
as we thought we would get on well with.”
Created a group easily with
friends who can work in
harmony
–310
Put the project goals on the
team site clearly
–211
552 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
Planning and organizing
Table 5 summarizes the findings obtained from the tasks of scheduling and the distribution stage
during the project based learning process.
Screenshots also, showed that (S2, S5 and S12) planned their working periods on the calendar by
sharing their appropriate periods. In addition, deadlines were assigned to the tasks via the calendar
tool. The tasks were distributed related to the students’interests, skills and work load along the
process.
Creating the project
Table 6 summarizes the findings obtained from the application stage during the PBL process.
After the students shared the tasks, they started searching for information about their projects.
The students in all groups investigated various web pages in accordance with the recommendation
of their instructors and took notes about the Team Site design. Most of the students (92%) stated that
they could share information about the projects during the process. Most of them could also
comment on the web sites of their friends on the Team Site. They discussed about the layout,
colors, navigation and menus of the sites through the Lync Online meetings. The students started
to the design stages in accordance with these decisions. While the students in the first group
Table 5. Views about Scheduling and the Distribution of Tasks.
Actions
Did not
exist
Partly
existed Existed
Selected Student Viewsfff
Able to make a schedule on the web
calendar before starting the
project.
1 3 9 S12: “We recorded the decisions on the schedule that can
be updated about the meeting times and the topics
through Lync meetings.”
S2: “Each student stated the tasks they could perform
and we distributed the tasks.”
Planned and updated the Project
period.
–49
Exchanged ideas about task
distribution
–310
Table 6. Views about the Application of the Project.
Actions
Did not
exist
Partly
existed Existed
Selected Student Viewsfff
Verified the data collected from various
sources.
3 10 S10: “When I had a problem in my design, one of our
group friends set connection through Lync and
solved the problems thanks to its screen control
features. I used Lync screen sharing feature to
present one of my homework and get feedback.”
S11: “In a Lync meeting, we decided what kind of
page design we should make and what color and
layout we should use and we implemented it.”
S6: “One of the problems we experienced while
creating the web site was that some contents such as
animation ran on one browser but did not on
another. As the system we were using allowed
changes on html code, we were able to make it run
on all browsers. ”
Shared information within the group. 2 11
Choose the necessary information for
the project.
310
Took responsibility. 3 10
Discussed about webpage designs. 7 6
Could not reach a consensus about the
design at the same time.
92 2
Combined the resulting data
(documents, pictures, videos,
animations, etc.) conveniently.
49
Enabled to do enough research for the
topic.
2–11
Spent long time to edit various types of
files on the web.
67 –
Had difficulty providing revise about
the instructor’s feedback.
11 2 –
Provided solutions when the features of
the medium were insufficient.
310
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 553
decided on most of the contents and pictures of the web site all together, the other groups deter-
mined pages to be developed cooperatively and shared the rest of the pages.
Table 4 indicates that, students started to the design process with searching about the project
topics on the internet and students used Lync Online to get feedback from the instructor. They
could interact with each other on their individual or collaborative tasks using the screen control
feature of Lync (Figure 3).
The groups frequently held meetings. While members of Group1 and Group4 used Lync for meet-
ings, members of the Group2 and Group3 mostly used chat software. Screenshots showed that stu-
dents faced with only few problems stemming from the features of the system, especially during the
design stage. Some students found it somewhat difficult to use the edit feature so that they looked
for its alternatives. In this sense, majority of the interviewees (83%) addressed that they were able to
provide a solution when the affordances of the system were not enough.
Reporting, presentation and evaluation
Table 7 summarizes the findings obtained from the reports, presentations and evaluations during the
PBL process.
In the context of reporting, presentation and evaluation process, student responses (S2, S5, S6,
S12) indicated that, they were easily adapted to the components that Office 365 provides to
prepare presentations or reports and they found these components practical. They stated that
by the evaluation scale, not only the web site they created but also the whole PBL process
were evaluated. Table 8 summarizes the findings obtained from the cooperative work in the
process.
Three students expressed that, CC technology in this study provided them more easy work than
previous PBL applications. Most of the students expressed that they took responsibility in all stages,
therefore they could work individually and cooperatively.
Overall, the results from the interviews and screenshots together indicate that various services of
Office365 were used at PBL process. Table 9 summaries the Office365 services used in the stages of
the PBL process.
Figure 3. Cooperation through lync online screen control feature.
554 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
Roles of students and instructor in the instructional process
Instructor roles
Content analysis was provided for the interview data and interpreted open ended questions together
to address instructor roles. The resulting themes about the instructor roles came out as (1) giving gui-
dance, (2) providing technical support, (3) being administrator, and (4) communicator. The roles are
briefly outlined in Tables 10–13.
Guidance
Students reported that at the beginning and during the project, the instructor’s guidance helped
them to fulfill their responsibilities in time. In this sense, 10 students stated in open ended questions
that they received necessary support from the instructor when they had difficulty.
Providing technical support
Most of the students addressed that the experience of the instructor about the media was helpful for
the instructor so he could support them when the medium was inadequate.
Table 7. Views about reporting, presentation and evaluation process.
Actions
Did not
exist
Partly
existed Existed Selected Student Views
fff
Evaluated the efforts during the
work using the questionnaire.
1 4 8 S12: “We prepared the presentation through Office 365 on
the Team Site and Lync meeting. Each member could
add the part they prepared for the presentation.”
S13: “The scale was the summary of the process. We
were able to see not only our own work but also what
other groups were doing.”
Created the project report on the
system.
–49
Completed the presentation of the
project within the scheduled
time.
–58
Could not use the various features
while preparing the presentation.
643
Presented the design in an effective
way.
337
Evaluated the projects using the
evaluation scale.
–49
Table 8. Views about the process of the project.
Actions
Did not
exist
Partly
existed Existed
Selected Student Viewsfff
Tooke an active role during the
project.
––12 S2: “When we were not together, it took long time to
arrange components However; the medium we used
provided some advantages for us.”
S13:“The system had quite favorable properties for
working online. Intervening in what we have done,
revising them repeatedly according to members’
opinions, and following members’work were the
advantages.”
Had difficulties on fulfilling
responsibilities
58–
Shared data with group members –211
Had difficulty working individually. 8 5 –
Took responsibilities in line with
request.
–310
Searched enough for the project. 2 –11
Able to cooperate with my group
friends and students in other groups.
–58
Had difficulty exchanging ideas within
the group.
83 2
Found solutions for technical problems
from friends and teachers.
–112
Able to work out solutions when the
features of the medium were
insufficient.
–310
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 555
Administrator role
Students followed the work of the groups one by one. They were informed and warned about the
necessary components and directed to the tasks by joining Lync online meetings. Thus, students
reported the crucial role of the instructor in the planning stage to lead them follow the path of
their work. All of the students also stated that the time to complete the project was enough.
Communicator role
Some students identified that being able to communicate with the instructor let them use the time
effectively; and using various ways of communication helped them to get feedback in a short time.
On the other hand, students were pleased with the way that the instructor conducted in online
setting. He allowed students to talk about the topics and discuss on the problems. To that end,
one of the instructor roles emerging during the process was considered particularly communi-
cation-based. Table 14 outlines the instructor roles during the process.
Student roles
Data obtained from the interviews and screen shots were interpreted to address student roles.
Content analysis reflecting the themes related to the student roles were revealed as (1) cooperation,
Table 9. Office365 services used in project based learning stages.
Office365 Services
PBL Stages
Create the groups and define
the project subjects
Forming the Schedule /
Sharing the tasks Implementation
Reporting Presentation
and Evaluation
Lync Online
.Web interviews
.Screen sharing
.Screen controls
✓✓✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Office Web Apps
.Office Word
.Office
PowerPoint
✓✓✓✓
✓
Exchange Online
.Outlook
(Calendar App)
✓✓
SharePoint Online
.Team Web Site
.General Web
Site
✓✓
✓
✓
SkyDrive
.Storage and
Sharing
✓
Table 10. Views about instructors’guidance.
Actions
Did not
exist
Partly
existed Existed
Selected Student Viewsfff
Provided feedback about the
project .
––13 S2: “Instructor’s presentation at the beginning helped us about
what we should pay attention at every stage.”
S12: “Weekly meetings helped us work in a group. Instructor
checked what we had already done and guided for the
coming week in these meetings.”
Guided us along the project. ––13
Helped students feel positive
when they are struggling.
10 3 –
556 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
Table 11. Views about technical support role.
Actions
Did not
exist
Partly
existed Existed
Selected Student Viewsfff
The teacher had enough information
about the software we used and this
facilitated our job.
––13 S5: “Whenever we had problems on how to use the
components, the instructor made videos to show us
the solutions and shared them on SkyDrive”
S6: “Once I had a problem I took a screenshot and
shared this with my instructor and he helped me
through Lync”
We received the teacher’s support when
the medium we used was inadequate.
––13
The teacher worked out solutions for
technical problems when necessary.
–49
The approach of the teacher for solving
problems was motivating.
––13
Table 12. Views about the administration role.
Actions
Did not
exist
Partly
existed Existed
Selected Student Viewsfff
Our course process was planned
well by the teacher.
––13 S6: “Instructors’administration of the project helped us
progress in a planned way. The questions ‘What have we
done?’and ‘What are we going to do?’every week
helped us be active and progress as a group.”
The teacher allowed us enough
time to fulfill our responsibilities.
––13
Insufficient intervention of the
teacher disrupted the Project
process.
931
Table 13. Views about the communicator role.
Actions
Did not
exist
Partly
existed Existed
Selected Student Viewsfff
Could talk to the instructor out of the
lessons.
3–10 S5: “The active participation of instructor during the
process was not only limited with instructor-student
relationship; we could also reach him out of the
lessons. We progressed as if he were one of the group
members.”
Could contact the instructor easily
when necessary.
––13
Had chance to talk in weekly
presentations.
––13
Each member’s perspectives were
considered by instructor long the
process.
––13
Instructor was able to explain easily
the things he did not know or
understand.
1–12
Table 14. Instructor Roles in PBL with CC.
Themes Codes
Guidance Providing information about the Project
Keeping the students active
Having the students use the time effectively
Providing technical support Introducing the media being used
Helping students use the media features
Working out solutions in a short time
Administrator Planning the process
Following the work
Participating the work when necessary
Communicator Providing various ways to contact
Providing feedback in a short time
Exchanging ideas with students
Being considerate and friendly
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 557
(2) coordination, (3) communication, (4) leadership, (5) investigation, (6) practitioner, (7) providing an
effort and (8) taking responsibility.
Cooperation role
The screenshots indicated that the students exchanged ideas using Lync Online, cooperated and
helped each other using CC affordances. Lync provided an advantage when they wanted to hold
a meeting. Particularly due to the storage feature of the CC (SkyDrive), students were able to share
the contents instantly, created documents with Word and share them on the Team Web Site; they
could help each other through Lync and worked cooperatively on the tasks. For instance, students
in Group4 shared work load. They also searched for the web pages they shared and they were inter-
ested in the designs of these pages.
Coordination role
Students were observed to hold meetings through Lync to exchange opinions about the individual
designs. Students could coordinate the tasks on the system calendar on which they pointed the
deadlines of the tasks. Particularly Outlook and Lync Online services contributed to the accessibility
of the system any time. Within this role S7 expressed that:
When there was a difficulty, we were able to stimulate each other. If any member was not available online we
continued. We remember that we were in the same boat.
Communication role
Students often felt that they needed to contact the instructor and other members. They exchanged
ideas easily since they had the chance to express themselves using text, audio and visual tools in the
meetings through Lync. An interesting perspective about this role was:
S10: This was the most comfortable group-work I had ever done for 3 years. We often had communication pro-
blems in previous studies but this time, we exhibited more effective work as we had better communication with
the instructor and within the group.
Leadership role
The screenshots illustrated that particularly three students (S2, S5, S12) took more active leader-
ship roles in their groups. They assigned their plan on the calendar, demands for meeting on Lync
when necessary and organized their time. S3 identified the opportunity of leadership as follows:
One of the members provided the coordination among us as his communication ability was more powerful. He
created the working plan on Outlook and also helped us fulfill our tasks.
Investigator role
Some of the students searched for information from various sources on the Internet, stored it on the
Team Web Site, and documented it during Web Site design stage. They also searched for solutions
about the problems faced where the CC technology was insufficient. Similarly, some students also
reported that they found some visual contents on the Internet and they shared them on SkyDrive
and Team Site. S2 identified that:
I searched for content during the process on the Internet and saved them immediately. We were able to upload
everything we found via SkyDrive.
Both screenshots and interviews reflected that students have investigation roles to search for infor-
mation about the projects and search for solutions in web design.
558 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
Practitioner role
Students were able to choose the texts they created on the Team Site and the visual content in SkyD-
rive. They generally made their own choices and used them after editing. Two students by focusing
on Lync features expressed that:
S12: I tried to revise my designs in line with my friends’views. Sometimes my friends reflected their thoughts
through screen control.
S4: I used editing programs on the images, applied the images on the web site many times, checked whether it is
suitable or not.
Effort provider role
The screenshots indicated that, S2 and S3 (group1), S5 (group2), S7 (group3), and S10, S12 and S13
(group4) were more active in achieving the tasks along the process. Members often made trials until
they design their website and sometimes they revised relevant sections. Two different approaches
about the provided efforts are as follows:
S2: During the web site design stage, we wanted to allocate image anywhere but the system did not allow this.
We needed to create a table and this occupied us a lot.
S3: I had some difficulties in creating the banners because of some limitations. We tried various methods to over-
come this limitation.
In sum, students were reflected to provide effort to reach the powerful web site design they
desired and they preferred various methods to handle the limitations, especially in SharePoint.
While some of the students were busy with coding, the others were interested in visual content.
Some of them who took more responsibilities provided more effort in the process. In this sense, S1
pointed out that the students took various responsibilities based on their choices, knowledge and
skills.
S1: My friends in the other groups were more interested in opening documents in the Team Site. I took the
responsibility of coding and html as I was familiar with it.
Table 15 shows the students’roles individually or cooperatively by using different services.
Denton (2012) claimed that cloud applications may be used in educational context with its affor-
dances about supporting activities for accessing prior knowledge such as retrieving and sharing
Table 15. Student roles in PBL through CC.
Themes Codes
Cooperation Helping group members
Exchanging ideas
Sharing content
Sharing the current workload
Coordination Understanding the task done
Complying the work schedule
Communication Communicate with the teacher and group members when needed
Using various communication tools
Leadership Being active in the group
Keeping in touch with group friends and the teacher
Scheduling working time
Expressing group views
Investigation Searching various information sources
Taking experts’opinions
Searching for solutions for technical issues and limitations
Practitioner Choosing and documenting the content found
Editing, storing and using the content
Provide Effort Trying many times in design stage
Handling deficiencies
Taking responsibilities regarding the wishes, knowledge and skills
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 559
information. The rest of the discussion section focuses on the association of CC features and coop-
erative learning activities and the students and instructors’roles in this process.
Discussion
PBL activities in the online project based design activities
According to Korkmaz and Kaptan (2001), a typical PBL implementation includes following stages:
defining problem and taking role, planning and organizing, creating project, presenting project
and evaluating process. It was observed that the activities in the stages were realized to a certain
extent via CC. In this process, planning, implementing and evaluating stages were not distinctly sep-
arated and they were joint each other. Three stages were assessed as one group and thus totally PBL
process schedule was implemented in four stages. Office365 provided opportunities to determine
project topics, prepare work plan, distribute the tasks, implement the project, prepare project
report and present and evaluate its components (Figure 4).
Considering the titles in Figure 4, we discussed findings in two basic stages: (1) “The analysis of the
project”(defining problem and taking role, planning and organizing, creating the project), which
were the first phases of the PBL process in the study, and (2) other phases as “the evaluation of
the project”(preparing to present the project, presenting the project and evaluating the process).
In this sense, Figure 4 confirms the idea of Denton (2012) that many features of cloud-based appli-
cations emphasize collaborative work in constructivist approach especially in Internet publishing.
Analysis of the projects
In this study, the instructor acted as a guide for the students in constructing groups and group
harmony, determining the project problem and taking responsibilities. In this sense, Huang (2009)
revealed that group harmony can contribute to facilitate the group communication. Students
carried out the tasks collaboratively with a mutual understanding that they were far from each
Figure 4. PBL process in online learning.
560 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
other. One of the most important difficulties in PBL is determining the project topics by students. In
this study, the students came together with Lync online meetings or other chat software. In these
meetings, group members shared their knowledge about their interests and they all took instructor
perspectives into consideration.
Attri (2012) pointed out that cooperative works in PBL require proper planning for online learning.
In this study, the groups created work plan on Office365 calendar component and the group
members were observed to conform the schedule in this process. Roberts and Mcinnerney (2007)
pointed out that working in a group and arranging a schedule in online learning is difficult. In con-
trast, in this study the group members always had the chance to update the calendar. With this com-
ponent, CC features facilitated to develop the time management skills in online planning. In addition,
Lync Online provided a platform for students where they were able to express their preferences
easily. Similarly, Kalaycı(2008) pointed out that students have to share tasks, preferences and
relationships on the certain platforms in project studies. Similar to this study results, Atchariyachan-
vanich, Siripujaka, and Jaiwong (2014) demonstrated that students not sharing the same time and
space could perform teamwork with the help of CC applications. In this study, students evaluated
the web sites and they took notes on the Team Site in terms of their target population, content, tem-
plates, visual quality, and color harmony. SkyDrive stored texts, pictures, videos and other materials.
On the other hand, Levin (2002) took attention about taking responsibility and making decision so
that students can work cooperatively. In this study, fulfilling their responsibilities, students put
forward their ideas, discussed and followed each other’s work with the support of CC technologies.
By using the screen control feature of Lync Online, the students directly contributed to other
members’tasks.
Evaluation of the projects
In the evaluation stage, the groups adhered to the instructors’request while preparing their presenta-
tions. Instructor could follow what the students could do, and how they did it using various com-
ponents of CC. In this regard, Rice and Shannon (2015) pointed out that, in PBL activities, sharing
rubrics covering the process and the goal for a better evaluation would be convenient. In this study,
a process-based evaluation was carried out by sharing the rubric with the students at the beginning
of the process. Rice and Shannon (2015) also reported that student-teacher and student-student com-
munication had a critical importance in teamwork in PBL, and this communication could be enhanced
with online applications, quick response systems, and videos. In this study, Lync Online which has
similar affordances has been used actively in the each stage of PBL process. The CC technology
(especially Lync Online) as similar to the findings of Ellison and Arora (2013) played a key role in sup-
porting communication, screen control and screen sharing in addition to cooperation.
Overall, Office365 provided CC services and contributed to to make plans, communicate, share
and exchange knowledge, share various materials to help others, interact with the content, work indi-
vidually and in cooperation, prepare presentations and reports, and facilitate the evaluation process.
Instructor roles
Instructor roles in online design activities, as mentioned in Mcghee and Kozma (2003), and Guasch,
Alvarez, and Espasa (2010), were guidance, providing technical support; administrator and setting up
communication (Figure 5). Also as reported in Marx et al. (1994), the instructors are manager, active
technology user and assistant of learning. The managing, assisting learning, active technology user
roles were also similar to the current study. The Office365 services in the study influenced instructor
roles emerging in PBL process.
Acting the guidance role; instructor provided the information and suggestions that contributed
positively to the students being active and having effective time management. Also, instructor
was generally aware of keeping learners on the right track. Some researchers offered technical
support as one of the instructor roles in online settings (Easton, 2003; Varvel, 2007). The students
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 561
in this study had been newly introduced to Office365 so sometimes they needed to the instructor
support. Thanks to instructor’s experience, technical problems were solved immediately. Another
instructor role emerged in this study was administrator. As similar to Yi (2012) time planning, man-
agement and organization skills were important for quality PBL applications in this study. Instructor’s
feedback is a critic issue for creating valuable artifacts online (Mcbridge & Fagersten, 2008).Various
communication tools of Lync Online and other features of Office365 facilitated instructor roles
about suggesting solutions and providing feedback for projects. Similar to Pieratt (2011), the instruc-
tor in this study could create an intimate atmosphere by communicating with the students through
Lync Online and other software.
In sum, all of the instructor roles emerging along the process over Office365 facilitated the stu-
dents’roles developing the projects online and experiencing in all stages of PBL.
Student roles
Student roles in online design activities were evaluated considering the student behaviors and per-
spectives. Students’behaviors were discussed under two basic situations: “individual”and “group”.
While students worked in the group, their roles were cooperation, setting up communication, and
coordination. These roles cover assistance, exchanging ideas, sharing and cooperation that could
be considered as working together. On the other hand, among the roles, doing research individually,
being a practitioner, making an effort and leadership selecting the information, editing, performing
trials, and setting up communication within the group or with the instructor.
Students’roles were summarized in Figure 6.
The students’roles addressed in the PBL setting of this study were similar with some other online
PBL settings. In this sense, Başbay (2008) found the roles as being responsible, doing research,
cooperation, making an effort, contacting the content, interaction with different courses and
problem solving. The roles reported by Williams (2010) such as communication and interaction, plan-
ning and management, cooperation and team work and technology use emerged frequently in this
study. Some other roles in this study such as setting up coordination, and leadership were somewhat
different than other studies. Office365 affordances were supported to eliminate the cooperation pro-
blems and were ready to access at any time to comply the individual and together work schedule.
Similarly, Ellison and Arora (2013) found that Lync online contributed to the effective communication.
In this study, naturally occurring group leaders took active roles in the group, and expressed the
group views by ensuring contact with the instructor. In line to this role, Mcbridge and Fagersten
(2008) suggest that the relationship between the students and the instructor should be ensured
by a group leader in each sub-group in online learning. In this role, Office365 services such as
Figure 5. Instructor roles in PBL via CC.
562 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
calendar, and Lync online were of significance in realizing the leadership roles such as communi-
cation, planning and arrangement.
Students also acted as practitioners and provided effort to complete the projects. Similar to these
findings, Huang (2009) addressed that students themselves should choose the resources about the
project topics. Office365 facilitated editing process through the Team Web Site and storage through
SkyDrive, SharePoint Online, where the designs were created, facilitated the students’own decisions
on the design. On the other hand, Lau and Meyers (2013) demonstrated that the individual learning
experiences contributed to the teamwork. In this study, along the project process, Office365 ensured
student participation in the activities in which the students were able to take responsibilities in
accordance with their interest, knowledge and skills.
Lau and Meyers (2013) reported in their study that Web 2.0 technologies supported collaboration,
evaluation and teamwork in online project based learning. Similarly, some other researchers pointed
out that a particularly created online medium may sustain communication, collaboration, sharing
information with each other, and peer learning in project based learning (Lim, Grönlund, & Anders-
son, 2015; Shadiev, Hwang, & Huang, 2015). It was observed that Office365 as a CC technology con-
tributed to the communication, collaboration, sharing, and individual and collaborative learning
process of the students in the project process. From this point of view, the results of this study indi-
cate that PBL can be carried out with CC technologies in order to achieve the goals.
On the other hand, this case study was limited to an Internet Based Programming course in 4
groups. Comparing the results with more participants in different types of projects, may also
provide valuable evidences about the potentials of CC.
Conclusions
This study investigated how cloud computing technologies were influential by regarding instructor
and students’roles in online PBL.
Figure 6. Student roles in PBL via CC.
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 563
Potential of cloud computing in online project based design activities
The results indicated that CC technologies have adequate potential for creating groups and defining
topics, planning and distributing the tasks, implementation and reporting, presentation and evalu-
ation stages of PBL. The communication among students was in creating groups and defining
topic stages with meetings. The planning and task distribution stages were carried out with very
few disruptions on Lync online calendar service and they were updated on Exchange Online. At
this point, the meetings organized through Lync Online service of CC played a key role for group
communication. Screen sharing and screen controls emerged as another dimension of the
cooperation. The file sharing and online publishing were prominent features. The Team Site
service served to develop web site collaboratively at a high extent. In addition, storing and sharing
with SkyDrive, working on the project with SharePoint contributed to the cooperation. In conclusion,
Office365 as a CC technology contributed to the planning, communication and assistance, sharing
information and findings, interacting with content, individual and collaborative work, presentation,
reporting and evaluation in the PBL activities in online settings.
Instructor and students’roles
The instructor roles emerged as guidance, technical expert, administrator, and communicator in the
PBL process in Office365 services. Instructor generally recognized the pedagogical advantages of CC.
Students’roles in PBL process emerged as cooperation, coordination, communication, and leader-
ship, research, practice, and making an effort. Cooperation, coordination and communicator roles
became more prominent through Lync Online of CC services in the process.
To sum up, the study provided some evidences to confirm that the idea of CC has potential to
construct PBL activities online. Although instructor and students’roles vary due to the nature of
the online setting affordances, instructors and instructional designers can use CC technologies to
organize the courses. Consequently, it is hoped that this study provides an insight that project
based design activities in online settings can provide qualified learning outcomes. In future
studies, the potential of CC in online settings can be taken into consideration in order to enrich
the instructional processes with integrating the CC affordances with different teaching methods.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Ünal Çakiroğlu, PhD, is an associate professor at Karadeniz Technical University. His academic specialty is instructional
technologies, and his research interests include online technologies, social networking in education, learning analytics,
technology integration.
Turgay Erdemir, PhD candidate is an instructor at Bülent Ecevit University, Ereğli Vocational School. His research in inter-
ests includes online learning, cloud computing, mobile learning and technology integration.
References
Atchariyachanvanich, K., Siripujaka, N., & Jaiwong, N. (2014). What makes university students use cloud-based e-learning?:
Case study of KMITL students. In Information society (i-society), 2014 international conference on (pp. 112–116). IEEE.
Attri, A. (2012). Distance education: Problems and solutions. International Journal of Behavioral Social and Movement
Sciences,1(4), 42–58.
Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding:
Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences,7(3–4), 271–311.
Başbay, M. (2008). The effect of project based instruction on learning outcomes designed according to the revised taxonomy
in the instructional design course (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
564 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
Bekhet, A. K., & Zauszniewski, J. A. (2012). Methodological triangulation: An approach to understanding data. Nurse
Researcher,20(2), 40–43.
Bernard, R. M., & Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (2010). Computer conferencing: An environment for collaborative project-based
learning in distance education. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and
Practice,7(2–3), 241–261.
Blood, E. (2011). Point systems made simple with google docs. Intervention in School and Clinic,46, 305–309.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learn-
ing: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist,26(3-4), 369–398.
Bonham, S. (2011). Whole class laboratories with google docs. The Physics Teacher,49(1), 22–23.
Çakıroğlu, Ü, & Erdemir, T. (2013). Project based learning on cloud computing: office 365, 7. International computer and
instructional technologies symposium,6–8 June, Atatürk University, Erzurum.
Ching, Y. H., & Hsu, Y. C. (2013). Peer feedback to facilitate project-based learning in an online environment. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,14(5), 258–275.
Denton, D. W. (2012). Enhancing instruction through constructivism, cooperative learning, and cloud computing.
TechTrends,56(4), 34–41.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Desai, M. T., Patel, M. R., & Patel, M. P. (2016). Cloud computing in education sector. International Journal for Innovative
Research in Science and Technology,2(10), 191–194.
Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’srole in online distance learning. Communication Education,52(2), 87–105.
Ellison, A., & Arora, M. (2013). Harnessing the power of office 365 to provide a social learning environment through a new
student portal. 19th EUNIS congress “ICT Role for Next Generation Universities”.
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks,11(1), 61–72.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future direc-
tions. The Internet and Higher Education,10(3), 157–172.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report,8(4), 597–606.
González-Martínez, J. A., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Gómez-Sánchez, E., & Cano-Parra, R. (2015). Cloud computing and edu-
cation: A state-of-the-art survey. Computers & Education,80, 132–151.
Guasch, T., Alvarez, I., & Espasa, A. (2010). University teacher competencies in a virtual teaching/learning environment:
Analysis of a teacher experience. Teaching and Teacher Education,26, 199–206.
Hammond, M., & Wiriyapinit, M. (2005). Learning through online discussion: A case of triangulation in research.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,21(3), 283–302.
Heo, H., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, Y. (2010). Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction
in project-based learning. Computers & Education,55(3), 1383–1392.
Huang, C. C. (2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical study of technology R&D
teams in Taiwan. Technovation,29(11), 786–797.
Ibrahim, M. S., Salleh, N., & Misra, S. (2015). Empirical studies of cloud computing in education: a systematic literature
review. In Computational science and its applications, iccsa 2015 (pp. 725–737). Springer International Publishing.
Kalaycı,N.(2008). An application related to project based learning in higher education analysis in terms of students
directing the project. Education and Science,33(147), 85–105.
Kennedy, D., & Duffy, T. (2004). Collaboration –A key principle in distance education. Open Education,19(2), 203–211.
Kittle, P., & Hicks, T. (2009). Transforming the group paper with collaborative online writing. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches
to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture,9, 525.
Koch, F., Assunção, M. D., Cardonha, C., & Netto, M. A. (2016). Optimizing resource costs of cloud computing for education.
Future Generation Computer Systems,55, 473–479.
Korkmaz, H., & Kaptan, F. (2001). Project-Based learning approach in science education. Hacettepe University Journal of
Education,20, 193–200.
Lau, S., & Meyers, W. (2013). An exploratory study of personal reflection and collaboration skills using online collaborative
tool in project-based learning. In 24th australasian conference on information systems (ACIS) (pp. 1–11). RMIT University.
Levin, P. (2002). Running group projects: Dealing with the free-rider problem. Planet,5,7–8.
Lim, N., Grönlund, Å, & Andersson, A. (2015). Cloud computing: The beliefs and perceptions of Swedish school principals.
Computers & Education,84,90–100.
Lou, Y. (2004). Learning to solve complex problems through between-group collaboration in project-based online
courses. Distance Education,25(1), 49–66.
Lou, Y., & Kim MacGregor, S. (2004). Enhancing project-based learning through online between-group collaboration.
Educational Research and Evaluation,10(4–6), 419–440.
Maor, D. (2003). The teacher’s role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Educational
Media International,40(1–2), 127–138.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelley, B., & Meyer, K. M. (1994). Enacting project-based
science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal,94, 517–538.
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 565
Mcbridge, K., & Fagersten, K. B. (2008). Students’role in distance learning, opening doors through distance learning edu-
cation. Principles, Perspectives and Practices,1,43–66.
Mcghee, R., & Kozma, R. (2003). New teacher and student roles in the technology-supported classroom, Annual meeting of
the american educational research association.
Moore, M. (1990). Recent contributions to the theory of distance education. Open learning,5(3), 10–15.
Morales, T. M., Bang, E., & Andre, T. (2013). A one-year case study: Understanding the rich potential of project-based learn-
ing in a virtual reality class for high school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology,22(5), 791–806.
Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom.
Teacher Education and Special Education,24(1), 71.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pieratt, J. R. (2011). Teacher-Student relationships in project based learning: A case study of high tech middle north county
(Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Claremont Graduate University, Claremont.
Ravitz, J., & Blazevski, J. (2014). Assessing the role of online technologies in project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Problem-Based Learning,8(1), 9.
Rice, M., & Shannon, L. J. (2015). Developing project based learning, integrated courses from two different colleges at an
institution of higher education: an overview of the processes, Challenges, and Lessons Learned. In Proceedings of the
EDSIG conference (p. n3432).
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Contextualizing instruction in project-based science: Activating students’prior knowl-
edge and experiences to support learning. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences
(pp. 435–442). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Roberts, T. S., & Mcinnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational
Technology and Society,10(4), 257–268.
Ryan, G. W, & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods,15(1), 85–109.
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2015). A pilot study: Facilitating cross-cultural understanding with project-based
collaborative learning in an online environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,31(2), 123–139.
Shih, W. L., & Tsai, C. Y. (2017). Students’perception of a flipped classroom approach to facilitating online project-based
learning in marketing research courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,33(5), 32–49.
Taylor, C., & Gibbs, G. R. (2017). What is qualitative data analysis. Online QDA Web Site.
van Rooij, S. W. (2009). Scaffolding project-based learning with the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®).
Computers & Education,52(1), 210–219.
Varvel, V. E. (2007). Master online teacher competencies. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,10(1), 1–41.
Wang, M., Pool, M., Harris, B., & Wangemann, P. (2001). Promoting online collaborative learning experiences for teenagers.
Education Media International,38(4), 203–215.
Williams, P. (2010). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. American
Journal of Distance Education,17(1), 45–57.
Wood, M. (2011). Collaborative lab reports with Google docs. The Physics Teacher,49(3), 158–159.
Wu, S. Y., & Hou, H. T. (2014). Exploring the process of planning and implementation phases in an online project-based
discussion activity integrating a collaborative concept-mapping tool. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,23(1),
135–141.
Yi, Z. (2012). The instructor’s roles in distance education for library and information science. Chinese Librarianshi: An
International Electronic Journal,34,2
9–37.
566 Ü. ÇAKIROĞLU AND T. ERDEMİR
