skip to main content
research-article

Automated Orchestration of Online Educational Collaboration in Cloud-based Environments

Published:16 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Integrated collaboration environments (ICEs) are widely used by corporations to increase productivity by fostering groupwide and interpersonal collaboration. In this article, we discuss the enhancements of such environment needed to build an educational ICE (E-ICE) that addresses the specific needs of educational users. The motivation for the research was the Małopolska Educational Cloud (MEC) project conducted by AGH University and its partners.

The E-ICE developed by MEC project fosters collaboration between universities and high schools by creating an immersive virtual collaboration space. MEC is a unique project due to its scale and usage domain. Multiple online collaboration events are organized weekly between over 150 geographically scattered institutions. Such events, aside from videoconferencing, require various services. The MEC E-ICE is a complex composition of a significant number of services and various terminals that require very specific configuration and management.

In this article, we focus on a model-driven approach to automating the organization of online meetings in their preparation, execution, and conclusion phases. We present a conceptual model of E-ICE-supported educational courses, introduce a taxonomy of online educational services, identify planes and modes of their operation, as well as discuss the most common collaboration patterns.

The MEC E-ICE, which we present as a case study, is built in accordance with the presented, model-driven approach. MEC educational services are described in a way that allows for converting the declarative specification of E-ICE application models into platform-independent models, platform-specific models, and, finally, working sets of orchestrated service instances. Such approach both reduces the level of technical knowledge required from the end-users and considerably speeds up the construction of online educational collaboration environments.

References

  1. J. Williams. 2015. Collaborative learning spaces: Classrooms that connect to the world. Retrieved from http://tiny.cc/scn4rz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Savolainen and M.-M. Virnes. 2016. The Effect of Virtual Working Spaces on Higher Education Collaborative Learning in JAMK. Bachelor's Thesis. JAMK University of Applied Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. L. Stefan. 2012. Immersive collaborative environments for teaching and learning traditional design. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.287Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. I. K. Ficheman, R. de Deus Lopes, and S. E. Kruger. 2002. A virtual collaborative learning environment. In Proceedings of the Simpósio Ibero-Americano de Computação Gráfica.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. N. Wahls, A. Méndez-Betancor, M. Brierley, et al. 2017. Collaborative learning in global online education using virtual international exchanges. Retrieved from http://tiny.cc/mgn4rz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. H. Hu. 2015. Building virtual teams: Experiential learning using emerging technologies. E-Learn. Dig. Media. DOI:10.1177/2042753014558373Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. B. Meyer. 2015. Learning through telepresence with iPads: Placing schools in local/global communities. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. DOI:10.1108/ITSE-09-2015-0027Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Hargreaves, and M. T. O'Connor. 2018. Collaborative Professionalism: When Teaching Together Means Learning. Corwin Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. Raths. 2015. Six ways videoconferencing is expanding the classroom. Retrieved from http://tiny.cc/rin4rz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. D. Seewungkum, H. Ketmaneechairat, and M. Caspar. 2012. A framework of virtual classroom model on the internet. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Future Generation Communication Technologies (FGCT’12). DOI:10.1109/FGCT.2012.6476574Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. B. Giesbers, B. Rienties, D. Tempelaar, and W. Gijselaers. 2013. Investigating the relations between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course using web-videoconferencing. Comput. Hum. Behav. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Rodriguez and R. Garcia-Martinez. 2014. A proposal of interaction modelling formalisms in virtual collaborative work spaces. Lect. Notes Softw. Eng. DOI:10.7763/LNSE.2014.V2.98Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. J. Lesko Jr, C. R. Russell, and Y. A. Hollingsworth. 2012. ROTATOR Model: A framework for building collaborative virtual workspaces. In Virtual Reality and Environments. Retrieved from https://www.intechopen.com/books/virtual-reality-and-environments/rotator-model-a-framework-for-building-collaborative-virtual-workspaces.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Y. Wang and S. Shawn Lee. 2013. Embedding virtual meeting technology in classrooms: Two case studies. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGITE Conference on Information Technology Education. DOI:10.1145/2512276.2512279Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Y. Tang and K. F. Hew. 2017. Using Twitter for education: Beneficial or simply a waste of time? Comput. Educ. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.004Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. I. Wang. 2014. The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Comput. Educ. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Mahapatra, S. Srivastava, K. Yadav, K. Shrivastava, and O. Deshmukh. 2016. LMS weds WhatsApp: Bridging digital divide using MIMs. In Proceedings of the 13th Web for All Conference. DOI:10.1145/2899475.2899485Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. N. Balta and K. Tzafilkou. 2019. Using Socrative software for instant formative feedback in physics courses. Educ. Inf. Technol. DOI:10.1007/s10639-018-9773-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. H. Treffz, J. Restrepo, P. Esteban, and A. M. Jimenez. 2010. Virtual collaborative learning environments with the telepresence platform supported by the teaching for understanding pedagogical framework: Experiences in higher educational process in Colombia. Retrieved from https://www.intechopen.com/books/e-learning/virtual_collaborative_learning_environments_with_the_telepresence_platform_supported.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. El Mhouti, A. Nasseh, M. Erradi, and J. M. Vasquèz. 2016. Cloud-based VCLE: A virtual collaborative learning environment based on a cloud computing architecture. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Systems of Collaboration (SysCo’16). DOI:10.1109/SYSCO.2016.7831340Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Y. Rhazali, Y. Hadi, and A Mouloudi. 2016. A based-rule method to transform CIM to PIM into MDA. Int. J. Cloud Applic. Comput. DOI:10.4018/IJCAC.2016040102Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Balanskat, R. Blamire, and S. Kefala. 2006. The ICT impact record: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet. http://tiny.cc/bd1ftz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Webb and M. Cox. 2004. A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technol. Pedag. Educ. DOI:10.1080/14759390400200183Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. H. P. Chia and A. Pritchard. 2014. Using a virtual learning community (VLC) to facilitate a cross-national science research collaboration between secondary school students. Comput. Educ. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.005Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. L. Cai, Y. Yang, and Y. Yang. 2004. A new idea of e-learning: Establishing video library in university network league. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on E-commerce Technology for Dynamic Business. DOI:10.1109/CEC-EAST.2004.4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. E. S. Alim and H. Jin. 2017. Deployment of cloud computing for higher education using Google apps. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conferences on Information Technology. Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE). DOI:10.1109/ICITISEE.2017.8285563Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. W. Luna and J. L. Castillo Sequera. 2015. Collaboration in the cloud for online learning environments: An experience applied to laboratories. Creat. Educ. DOI:10.4236/ce.2015.613144Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. L. F. Zapata Rivera and M. M. Larrondo Petrie. 2016. Models of collaborative remote laboratories and integration with learning environments. Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng. DOI:10.3991/ijoe.v12i09.6129Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. G. L. Kolfschoten, R. O. Briggs, J. H. Appelman, and G. J. de Vreede. 2004. ThinkLets as building blocks for collaboration processes: A further conceptualization. In Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use. CRIWG 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, G. J. de Vreede, L. A. Guerrero, and G. Marín Raventós (Eds). 3198. DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-30112-7_12Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. V. Agredo Delgado, C. A. Collazos, H. M. Hardoun, and N. Safa. 2017. Collaboration increase through monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of the collaborative learning process. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-58562-8_2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. L. Czekierda, S. Zielinski, and M. Szreter. 2017. Benefits of extending collaborative educational cloud with IoT. In Proceedings of the IEEE 26th International Conference on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE’17). DOI:10.1109/WETICE.2017.57Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. T. Engelmann, J. Dehler, D. Bodemer, and J. Buder. 2009. Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. L. Kobbe et al. 2007. Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. Comput.-support. Collab. Learn. DOI:10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. K. E. Psannis, C. Stergiou, and B. B. Gupta. 2019. Advanced media-based smart big data on intelligent cloud systems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Comput. DOI:10.1109/TSUSC.2018.2817043Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. C. Gutwin and S. Greenberg. 2002. A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Comput Supp. Coop. Work. DOI:10.1023/A:1021271517844Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. C. A. Collazos, F. L. Gutiérrez, J. Gallardo, et al. 2019. Descriptive theory of awareness for groupware development. J. Amb. Intell. Hum. Comput. DOI:10.1007/s12652-018-1165-9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Automated Orchestration of Online Educational Collaboration in Cloud-based Environments

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)39
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!