Digital group work represents a core component of contemporary distance education, yet it simultaneously presents considerable challenges for students. In light of the growing significance of digital and collaborative learning environments—and the limited research on students’ subjective experiences—this thesis examines how distance learners perceive cognitive, social, and emotional disruptions within digital group work. To address this, a systematic review of empirical studies was undertaken and analysed using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, extended to incorporate the concept of emotional presence. The objective was to develop a typology of subjectively experienced disruptions. The findings highlight several key stressors, including unclear task structures, limited social interaction, inadequate emotional expression, and organisational or time-related constraints. The paper concludes with practical recommenda-tions for the design of digital group work, underscoring the value of synchronous communication and trust-building strategies.
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Aids Used
1 Introduction
2 Ruptures
2.1 Cognitive Ruptures
2.2 Social Ruptures
2.3 Emotional Ruptures
2.4 The Three Dimensions
3 Theoretical Framework
3.1 Community of Inquiry Framework (Col)
3.1.1 Cognitive Presence - Categories and Indicators
3.1.2 Social Presence - Categories and Indicators
3.1.3 Teaching Presence - Categories and Indicators
3.2 Col as Analytical Model for Subjectively Perceived Ruptures
3.2.1 Emotional Presence as Extension
3.2.2 Handling Teaching Presence
3.3 Category System for Classifying Ruptures
4 Relevant Study Findings
5 Systematic Analysis of Subjectively Perceived Ruptures
5.1 Cognitive Ruptures
5.2 Social Ruptures
5.3 Emotional Ruptures
6 Discussion of Results
6.1 Cognitive Ruptures
6.2 Social Ruptures
6.3 Emotional Ruptures
6.4 Limitations
7 Conclusion
8 Bibliography
List of Tables
Table 1: The eight basic emotions according to Plutchik
Table 2: Systematics ofthe present study
Table 3: Perceived cognitive ruptures
Table 4: Perceived social ruptures
Table 5: Perceived emotional ruptures
List of Aids Used
Abb. in Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Abstract
Digitale Gruppenarbeit ist ein zentraler Bestandteil moderner Fernstudiengänge und gleichzeitig eine erhebliche Herausforderung für Studierende. Ausgehend von der bildungswissenschaftlichen Relevanz zunehmender digitaler und kollaborativer Lernprozesse sowie dem Mangel an Forschung zu deren subjektiver Belastung, widmet sich diese Arbeit der Frage, inwiefern Fern- und Onlinestudierende kognitive, soziale und emotionale Brüche in der digitalen Gruppenarbeit wahrnehmen. Zur Beantwortung wurde eine systematische Auswertung einschlägiger empirischer Studien vorgenom-men, die mithilfe des Community of Inquiry Frameworks (Col) und seiner Erweiterung um die emotionale Präsenz analysiert wurden. Ziel war es, subjektiv empfundenen Brü-che typologisch zu erfassen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass unklare Aufgabenstellungen, mangelhafte soziale Interaktion, fehlende emotionale Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten sowie strukturelle und zeitliche Barrieren zentrale Belastungsfaktoren sind. Die Studie schließt mit Empfehlungen zur Gestaltung digitaler Gruppenprozesse und hebt insbesondere die Bedeutung synchroner Kommunikation und vertrauensbildender Maßnahmen hervor.
Schlagwörter: Digitale Gruppenarbeit, Online-Studium, Fernstudium, Brüche, kognitive Präsenz, soziale Präsenz, Community of Inquiry
Abstract
Digital group work represents a core component of contemporary distance education, yet it simultaneously presents considerable challenges for students. In light ofthe growing significance of digital and collaborative learning environments—and the limited research on students’ subjective experiences—this thesis examines how distance learners perceive cognitive, social, and emotional disruptions within digital group work. To address this, a systematic review ofempirical studies was undertaken and analysed using the Community of Inquiry (Col) framework, extended to incorporate the concept of emotional presence. The objective was to develop a typology of subjectively experienced disruptions. The findings highlight several key stressors, including unclear task structures, limited social interaction, inadequate emotional expression, and organisational or time- related constraints. The paperconcludes with practical recommendations forthe design of digital group work, underscoring the value of synchronous communication and trustbuilding strategies.
Keywords : Digital group work, online-study, distance learning, cognitive disruptions, cognitivepresence, social presence, communityofinquiry.
1 Introduction
Digitalisation has fundamentally transformed education - particularly evident in distance and online learning contexts. The Corona pandemic accelerated this development, with learning processes increasingly taking place in virtual spaces. Collaborative and cooperative group work plays a significant role, though group size and focus vary (Donelan & Kear, 2023, p. 436). According to Conrad (2014), communication and the resulting interaction are key to successful online learning (p. 383). Since online and distance learners are physically separated from instructors and peers, a rupture arises that technology must bridge. Despite rapid technical advances, spatial and temporal obstacles in digital communication persist. Digital group work presents numerous challenges, such as reluctant participation or unclear task and role allocation (Baran, 2016, p. 74). While student-perceived ruptures in digital group work - whether cognitive, social or emotional - have been examined sporadically, they have not been systematically compiled in recent research. This paper addresses this gap.
The educational science relevance stems from the growing importance of self-organised, collaborative learning processes in digitalised educational settings. Digital group work is methodologically demanding and serves as a litmus test for successful virtual learning cultures. In distance programmes with reduced personal contact and limited institutional support, the question arises to what extent online and distance learners experience cognitive, social and emotional disruptions in digital interaction. From a societal perspective, the topic also touches on educational equity and participation: if digital group work fails, it may disproportionately affect those students already facing greater barriers.
While theoretical models like the Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison, 2000) or Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) approaches provide valuable explanations for successful online learning, studies specifically addressing subjective experiences of ruptures in digital group work remain scarce. Although research on online collaboration exists (e.g. Dillenbourg, 1999, pp. 1-19; Hrastinski, 2008, pp. 51-56), individual student experiences and perceptions - particularly in distance learning contexts - receive only marginal attention. Studies often emphasise potential benefits and didactic or performance-related aspects, neglecting student-perceived cognitive, social and emotional disruptions in digital group work. This paper aims to close this research gap by investigating: To what extent do distance and online students perceive cognitive, social or emotional ruptures in digital group work?
This question examines subjective rupture experiences during online interaction, encompassing both synchronous and asynchronous communication via video conferences, voice messages or text-based formats such as forums, social media or university learning platforms. Beyond merely evaluating learning outcomes, the focus lies on experiences and dynamics that hinder or prevent interaction, cooperation and collaboration among students in digital spaces.
This paper compiles and evaluates findings from recent studies on rupture phenomena in digital group work during online or distance learning, using the Community of Inquiry model (Garrison et al., 2000, pp. 87-103) as a theoretical lens. The result is a systematic overview of ruptures perceived by distance learners on cognitive, social and emotional levels, enabling an answerto the research question.
The paper is structured in eight chapters: following this introduction, Chapter 2 defines the rupture concept. Chapter 3 presents the Community of Inquiry Framework (CoI) as the theoretical framework. Chapter 4 reviews empirical studies on digital group work in higher education contexts, and Chapter 5 systematically evaluates these using a custom- developed category system. Chapter 6 discusses the findings and answers the research question. Chapter 7 summarises key insights and offers practice-relevant and research- oriented outlooks.
2 Ruptures
To address the research question rigorously, a precise definition of the term "rupture" is required. In educational science, it is not a fixed technical term but is increasingly used to describe discontinuities, irritations or interruptions in educational processes. In a call for papers, the German Educational Science Society (DGfE) highlighted the shimmering metaphorics surrounding ruptures, upheavals, breakthroughs, collapses, and new beginnings, noting that these point not least to the anthropological question of fragile existence (n.d., p. 2). According to the DGfE, ruptures encompass not only breaking points, crises, or collapses, but also an indispensable dimension for pedagogical thinking—whether appearing in educational biographies or processes, as effects of digital transformation, in pedagogical institutions, or at societal or disciplinary policy levels (p. 2).
In this paper, ruptures are understood as subjectively perceived interruptions, crises or disruptions within digital group work in online or distance learning, which can have both negative and positive effects on the learning experience and exchange among group members.
2.1 Cognitive Ruptures
This term is used in the present paper for disruptions, discontinuities or crises affecting the cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2000, pp. 93-94) of online or distance learners during digital group work. For example, difficulties may arise in information exchange, applying learned content or solving group tasks. Possible reasons include a lack of shared reference framework among group members or minimal common ground (Kraus, 2014, p. 354). In digital group work, this might manifest through inadequate preparation by individual members, differing learning and working styles, or divergent understandings of tasks and goals. Fogelin describes how a "clash of framework propositions" (2005, p. 8) can cause profound misunderstandings among group members, constituting a social rupture.
2.2 Social Ruptures
This concept refers in the present paper to disruptions, discontinuities and crises between group members: any breakdown, upheaval or impairment of social presence (Garrison et al., 2000, pp. 94-96) among online or distance learners working digitally in a group. Social ruptures may appear as impairments in open communication or group identification, manifesting as lack of commitment, unequal participation, unclear role allocation or loss of trust. definieren " [...] social presence as the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally as ,real‘ people (i.e., their full personality), through the medium of communication being used“ (2000, p. 94). Accordingly, this paper understands social ruptures as interpersonal disruptions, crises and barriers.
2.3 Emotional Ruptures
By contrast, emotional ruptures are understood in this paper as intrapersonal changes in the emotional world and affective irritations during digital group work: ruptures affecting the emotional presence of online and distance learners. These thus refer to emotional fluctuations within individual group members, such as frustration, isolation, boredom or rejection. According to Plutchik, there are eight basic emotions (Camras, 1980, p. 751), which he views as evolutionary adaptations triggering distinct functional action impulses (Table 1).
Abb. in Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 1: The eight basic emotions according to Plutchik. Source: Own representation.
2.4 The Three Dimensions
The dimensional classification of ruptures outlined above was made to better contextualise findings from studies on digital group work among online and distance learners. However, distinguishing cognitive, social and emotional ruptures is not always entirely clear-cut. On one hand, these processes occur within individuals and can only be elicited through questioning. On the other, communication of these feelings depends on awareness, trust and the interviewee's expressive capacity. Moreover, the presented rupture dimensions are likely to influence each other mutually. This paper cannot account for such interactions.
3 Theoretical Framework
Numerous theoretical works address the interdisciplinary field of distance education, including social-constructivist concepts like the Community of Practice (Lave, 1991, pp. 149) or Collaborative Learning by Dillenbourg et al. (1999, pp. 1-19). Media- and learnercentered models encompass approaches such as Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Hernandez-Selles et al., 2019, pp. 64-60) or the ICAP model (Chi, 2009, pp. 73-105; Chi & Wylie, 2014, pp. 219-243). Theories on media use include the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1985, pp. 15-26) and Media Synchronicity Theory (Dennis & Valacich, 1999, pp. 1-10), alongside group dynamics models like Tuckman's phase model (1965, pp. 384-399) and didactic frameworks such as Kehr's 3C model (2004, pp. 479-499). However, this paper does not examine how communities or collaborative learning emerge and function, the role of digital technology therein, or the processes of digital or collaborative learning. Nor does it investigate media usage or acceptance, group dynamics, or the didactic design of learning experiences.
This paper exclusively focuses on online and distance learners' subjective perceptions, specifically the extent to which they experience cognitive, social, and emotional ruptures in digital group work. Practice-oriented models like Zimmerman's Self-Regulated Learning (2009, pp. 299-315) address internal student processes but not perceptions of digital group work specifically. In contrast, Garrison et al.'s Community of Inquiry (Col) model (2000, pp. 87-105) provides a fruitful framework for analyzing subjectively felt ruptures during digital group work among online and distance learners.
3.1 Community of Inquiry Framework (Col)
„An educational community of inquiry is a group of individuals who collaboratively engage in purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding“ (Garrison et al., n.d.) states the first sentence on the Community of Inquiry Framework website. The Col thus represents the process of a deep and meaningful learning experience, arising through the unfolding of three interdependent elements:
• Cognitive Presence: the ability of a learner to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse (Garrison et al., 2001, p. 11).
• Social Presence: the ability of a learner to identify with a group, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop interpersonal relationships through projecting one's own personality (Garrison, 2009, p. 352).
• Teaching Presence: the design and management (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 1), as well as the regulation and temporal management of a learning process (Garrison et al., 2000, pp. 96-97).
Garrison et al. apply the Col framework by examining transcripts of online conferences in educational contexts for indicators of "meaningful educational activities" (p. 97). These indicators are then assigned to the presences via a category system (Table 2).
Abb. in Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 2: Community of Inquiry Coding Template Source: Own representation based on Garrison et al. (2000, p. 89).
According to Garrison et al., cognitive presence - the ability of group members to establish meaning and sense through sustained communication - is the most fundamental element for success in higher education (p. 89). It is also crucial for critical thinking ability.
The second core element, social presence, primarily functions to promote cognitive presence and thereby indirectly stimulate a process of critical thinking (p. 89).
Teaching presence, which in educational contexts typically falls to the official instructor, can in a CoI be exercised by any participant. One of its two functions is structuring and organising learning activities. The second function, shareable among all participants, is facilitating the learning experience (pp. 89-90).
Precisely because online communication often occurs text-based, distance education and e-learning differ markedly from traditional face-to-face instruction. Garrison et al. note that conventional teaching allows numerous forms of expression - through gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice, and intonation, for example. All this is difficult in text-based communication. Yet text-based communication also offers advantages and is closely linked to critical thinking: "In fact, the use of writing may be crucial when the objective is to facilitate thinking about complex issues and deep, meaningful learning" (pp. 90-91).
The authors also emphasise the special importance of the social context for learning activities and outcomes (p. 91), as well as collaboration's essential role in cognitive development (p. 92). Cognitive presence is more readily achieved, they argue, once a significant degree of social presence has been established (p. 95). Moreover: "As essential as cognitive presence is in an educational transaction, individuals must feel comfortable in relating to each other" (p. 94). Garrison et al. view understanding and knowledge acquisition as a collaborative process: "That is, socio-emotional interaction and support are important and sometimes essential in realizing meaningful and worthwhile educational outcomes" (p. 95). Since visual cues play a decisive role in face-to-face settings, computer conferences could likewise help establish social presence in collaborative communities (p. 95). This, the authors contend, marks the qualitative difference between a collaborative Col and a mere process of information downloading (p. 96).
Creating a Col, however, also requires teaching presence - especially in educational contexts and with computer conferencing. Garrison et al. argue that instructors can employ diverse methods through their presence to foster cognitive and social presence development (p. 96).
1.1.1 Cognitive Presence - Categories and Indicators
To investigate cognitive presence, the authors draw on Garrison's Critical Thinking Model (1991, pp. 8-13), which describes thinking and learning cycles in phases: first identifying a problem, then defining it, followed by an exploration phase seeking solutions. This leads to considerations of solution applicability and, finally, testing applicability and integrating the solution (1991, pp. 293-294).
Garrison et al. (2000) extend this approach: "The model presented here assumes an iterative and reciprocal relationship between the personal and shared worlds. That is, there is a synergy between reflection and communicative action. [...] This reflects the dynamic relationship between personal meaning and shared understanding (i.e., knowledge)" (p. 98). The model assigns to cognitive presence, as the first category, a triggering event. The second category is the search for information to solve the problem. Integrating this new knowledge into a coherent concept forms the third category. The fourth is problem resolution (p. 98).
1.1.2 Social Presence - Categories and Indicators
Garrison et al. (2000) assign indicators of social presence to three categories: emotional expression, open communication, and group cohesion. Words describing feelings or physical presence (e.g., warmth, closeness, attraction, or emoticons) fall under emotional expression, justified by: "Emotions are inseparably linked to task motivation and persistence, and, therefore, to critical inquiry" (p. 99). Humour and self-disclosure also belong here. Open communication includes expressions acknowledging other group members' contributions and achievements. These, per Garrison et al., foster sustainable relationships, cohesion, mutual support, and encouragement. Recognition likewise aids developing and maintaining exchange relationships (p. 100). The third category, group cohesion, encompasses activities establishing and sustaining group engagement, including any focused collaborative communication that builds participation and empathy (p. 101).
1.1.3 Teaching Presence - Categories and Indicators
Garrison et al. assign teaching presence to three categories: instructional management, building understanding, and direct instruction. Instructional management covers all organisation and planning aspects; the second category concerns processes for establishing effective group awareness, consensus, and understanding (p. 101). Direct instruction as the third category includes instructors' questions, assessments, and feedback.
3.2 CoI as Analytical Model for Subjectively Perceived Ruptures
The CoI framework was originally developed by Garrison et al. to analyze transcripts of computer conferences (p. 97). It primarily aims to explore the optimal use of these conferences as a medium for achieving educational goals (p. 103). When appropriately contextualized, however, its category system also suits qualitative analysis of subjectively perceived cognitive, social, and emotional ruptures in digital group work among online and distance learners. This paper incorporates emotional presence as discussed in later studies (e.g., Cleveland-Innes & Campbell, 2012, pp. 269-292).
3.2.1 Emotional Presence as Extension
Cleveland-Innes and Campbell (2012) define emotional presence as follows: "Emotional presence is the outward expression of emotion, affect, and feeling by individuals and among individuals in a community of inquiry, as they relate to and interact with the learning technology, course content, students, and the instructor" (p. 283). They justify introducing this dimension by noting emotions' central role in human experience and thus in learning environments (p. 270). Scientific studies confirm that emotions, such as exam anxiety, can strongly influence learners' performance and learning (e.g., Hascher& Bran- denberger, 2017b, pp. 289-310; Pekrun, 2017, pp. 215-231). "It could be argued that emotion is the gravity of a Community of Inquiry in that it is pervasive, holds things together, plays an essential role in decision making, and is often the prime mover (volition)" (Garrison, 2016, p. 41).
3.2.2 Handling Teaching Presence
Since this paper's research question focuses on learners rather than instructors, addressing their subjectively perceived cognitive, social, and emotional ruptures, perceptions of organizational and structural obstacles or barriers are classified as cognitive ruptures. For instance, when externally imposed time windows create perceived difficulties. Time and structure issues caused within the group or by group members, however, are categorized differently—as social ruptures. Per Garrison et al. (2000), teaching presence functions can be assumed not only by instructors but also by digital group members (p. 101). Thus, interpersonal difficulties from uncleartask or role allocation are classified as social ruptures.
3.3 Category System for Classifying Ruptures
This paper employs a category and indicator system oriented on the Col framework to classify perceived ruptures, requiring adaptations. For cognitive and social ruptures, it examines what hinders, prevents, or interrupts cognitive and social presence development. Emotional ruptures are understood as obstacles to emotional presence.
Abb. in Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 2: Systematics ofthe present study.
Source: Own representation.
In this paper, emotional expression is not assigned to the social dimension but understood as intrapersonal experiences of feelings and emotional barriers. Perceptions of intra- and interpersonal difficulties regarding structure, organisation, and time management (teaching presence) are allocated to cognitive (intrapersonal) and social (interpersonal) ruptures (Table 3). This systematic framework provides the basis for evaluating relevant study findings in Chapter 5.
4 Relevant Study Findings
Numerous quantitative and qualitative studies address digital group work, many focusing on online learning contexts. Some were conducted against theoretical backgrounds referenced in Chapter 3. Even beyond the Col model's theoretical framework, extensive research1 exists. Castellanos-Reyes (2020) provided an overview of work (pp. 558-558) in the first decade after the Col framework's publication (Garrison et al., 2000, pp. 87105), titled "Establishment of the Framework". According to them, the model's application was tested and critically examined up to 2019. With the Corona pandemic's forced shift to distance education worldwide and rapid technological advancements, research interest in distance and online teaching persisted. Studies explored Col design, didactics, and use of learning platforms and technologies in education (Fiock, 2020, pp. 134-152; Tan et al., 2020, pp. 2512-2518; Ng, 2022, pp. 190-205; Wang et al., 2022, pp. 814840). Alongside emotional presence as an additional dimension (Cleveland-Innes et al., 2021, pp. 23-26), Anderson's introduced "Learner Presence" (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010, pp. 1721-1731) was further researched (e.g., Honig & Salmon, 2021, pp. 95-119). Studies explicitly focusing on online and distance learners' subjective experiences in digital groupwork, however, remain scarce. Given rapid technological developments and digital tool applications in education, only publications from 2020 to 2025 are considered here.
Caskurlu et al. (2020) synthesized qualitative evidence on factors influencing distance learning in a thematic review. They found that while students valued collaborative work in small groups, it could prove dysfunctional due to personal learning preferences, misunderstandings, and communication issues among members. Problems such as delayed responses and lack of contributions from individuals were frequently cited. Interaction was generally viewed positively (p. 5), though not all students deemed it essential for learning success—largely owing to individual preferences, interaction quality, response relevance, and timeliness. One student, for instance, expressed reluctance to depend on others. Others noted repetitive contributions and recommended synchronous communication to foster humanity, prompt replies, immediate feedback, clearer courses, and better self-expression (p. 6). Findings on group belonging were largely positive, with video conferences welcomed for personal expression. However, some students stressed they could not fully replace face-to-face emotional expression. Time emerged as a key barrier, as recording videos took longer than in-person meetings, and tracking comments during conferences proved challenging. Synchronous video options were preferred (p. 6). Students expressed strong needs for clear instructions and guidelines; confusing assessments and absent directions were flagged as obstacles (pp. 6-7). Active discussion participation, timely and meaningful responses, and engagement in collaborative projects were deemed vital for online learning experiences (p. 8): "We had a student that barely participated and it made the project very difficult" (Thiessen, 2015, p. 73). Meaningful feedback with corrections and affirmations was also expected (Caskurlu et al., 2020, p. 8). Ultimately, the authors concluded that reliability, learning process support, and authenticity critically shape online learning quality (p. 9).
Pham et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative study at a Vietnamese university to better understand students' experiences with online classes following the onset of the Corona pandemic. Focus group interviews revealed students acknowledging many benefits but noting that online instruction demands greater effort, requiring more awareness and independence from learners. Regarding learning groups, some expressed concerns: "When learning online, working with strange groups can sometimes be very difficult. Maybe because I am not familiar with them, therefore, the interacting motivation is not too high" (p. 40); or "Many seem to have very little need to add new friends when learning online" (p. 40). The authors observed participants as more passive and less motivated when working with strangers, attributing this to insufficient interaction among learners, alongside a need for instructor support in group formation (p. 40). Despite using social media for exchange, direct social interactions remained limited: "When studying via online mode, it is hard to connect emotionally with other members, therefore, there is less motivation to care about others' difficulties or concerns while doing group work" (p. 40). Another participant noted online meetings hinder motivating others for group work: "I also feel that when meeting in person, each team member's responsibility to do the homework is often higher" (p. 40). Overall, teaching presence emerged as the key element for learning success, while social and cognitive presence were weakly perceived, mainly serving motivational roles.
In a quantitative study, Aslan (2021) examined collaborative synchronous learning environments based on student perceptions (p. 72). Using a quasi-experimental design, findings showed collaborative learning positively impacts distance education, confirming prior studies. Aslan stressed video conferences with cameras on: "Since the participants [...] were freshmen, they did not have a chance to meet their classmates in person, [...] knew little about each other, and did not have any sharing except for course activities" (p. 82). This likely negatively affected social presence perceptions. Results also highlighted breakout rooms' role: "The findings [...] reveal that, in order to increase interaction [...], the collaborative learning approach should be integrated in teaching" (p. 82).
Guo et al. (2021) investigated social and cognitive presence and their effects on academic performance. Analyzing WeChat transcripts from project-based online discussions measured these presences (p. 1480). "Emotional expression" comprised nearly half of social presence indicators, followed by "open communication" and "group cohesion," with frequent emoticon use (p. 1488). "Exploration" dominated cognitive presence indicators, reflecting high information exchange needs. "Information integration" and "resolution" were rare. Results suggest emotions strongly influence cognitive presence, and humor may aid academic success—distinguishing positive from negative forms. Vocatives and name addressing positively impacted group performance (p. 1489).
Homer (2022) used semi-structured interviews to explore students' perceptions of shifting to online instruction during the pandemic. Participants viewed cameras-off in conferences as problematic: "I was always like, camera on, interact, put my hands up, I'm like well if you're not gonna talk I'm going to ask the questions 'cause I wanna know the answers" (p. 339). Digital group work was not explicitly examined.
In a qualitative focus group study, Ignacio et al. (2022) found students rated collaborative face-to-face interactions as more productive than digital group work due to real-world opportunities. Participants noted personality and cultural differences contribute to virtual success, alongside discipline and control to prevent "zoning out" (p. 10). Knowing group members aids collaborative goals, with a holistic disciplinary view supporting cooperation (p.10).
Donelan and Kear (2023) systematically reviewed challenges in online group projects, identifying nine causally interlinked themes. Primary themes—lack of clarity, delayed/ab- sent participation, ineffective technology, inadequate group skills preparation, missed deadlines—trigger secondary ones: scheduling issues, unequal task/role division, weak/poor relationships, negative feelings (exacerbated by inequality and bad relations). Authors assign primary themes to teaching presence, secondary to social presence (p. 455).
5 Systematic Analysis of Subjectively Perceived Ruptures
The study findings identified in Chapter 4 are systematically assigned to the three rupture types using the adapted CoI category system and evaluated below (Table 3).
5.1 Cognitive Ruptures
Student-perceived ruptures were primarily experienced intrapersonally, concerning cognitive processes during digital group work. The Col indicators "trigger," "information exchange," "integration," and "application of ideas" now serve to classify the findings compiled in Chapter 4. Intrapersonally perceived disruptions, problems, or interruptions in structure, organisation, and time management (teaching presence) during group work are also categorised as cognitive ruptures.
Abb. in Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 3: Perceived cognitive ruptures. Source: Own representation.
5.2 Social Ruptures
Student-perceived social ruptures during digital group work were primarily experienced interpersonally. Findings are classified using Col indicators "open communication" and "group cohesion." Interpersonal disruptions, problems, or interruptions in structure, organisation, and time management (teaching presence) are also attributed to social ruptures.
Abb. in Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 4: Perceived social ruptures. Source: Own representation.
5.3 Emotional Ruptures
Student-perceived emotional ruptures during digital group work were experienced intra- personally—even when feelings and emotions related to other individuals.
Abb. in Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Table 5: Perceived emotional ruptures. Source: Own representation.
6 Discussion of Results
The systematic analysis of study findings in Chapter 5 reveals numerous challenges that online and distance learners experience as ruptures in digital group work. These can be structured along the three presented dimensions—cognitive, social, and emotional—with mutual influences between dimensions likely.
6.1 Cognitive Ruptures
Per the Col, a "state of dissonance or feeling of unease resulting from an experience" (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 98) serves as a trigger for critical thinking and learning. Students encountered such "triggers" in digital group work, questioning compatibility of personal learning preferences, group work's value, or unwanted dependencies (Caskurlu et al., 2020, p. 5; Thiessen, 2015, p. 75). During "exploration," students noted demands of digital group work and online learning. Face-to-face settings felt more productive and simpler, while personality and cultural differences were seen as success factors (Pham et al., 2021, p. 40; Ignacio et al., 2022, p. 10). "Integration" of new information was hindered by lack of clarity and group work skill preparation; comprehensive knowledge aided success (Ignacio et al., 2022, p. 10; Donelan & Kear, 2023, p. 455). Failure to achieve "resolution" registered as a rupture (Donelan & Kear, 2023, p. 455). Group work management issues—timing problems, confusing tasks, absent guidance, and insufficient group formation support—also caused ruptures (Caskurlu et al., 2020, pp. 6-7; Pham et al., 2021, p. 40; Donelan & Kear, 2023, p. 455). Results indicate multiple cognitive rupture forms potentially impacting social, emotional, and teaching presence.
6.2 Social Ruptures
Social ruptures appeared in "open communication" and prominently in "group cohesion." Misunderstandings, poor interactions/responses, absent/delayed participation (Caskurlu et al., 2020, pp. 5-6; Thiessen, 2015, p. 73; Donelan & Kear, 2023, p. 455; Pham et al., 2021, p. 40), and challenges tracking conference comments were perceived as such (Caskurlu et al., 2020, p. 6).
For "group cohesion," unfamiliarity, cameras off (Pham et al., 2021, p. 40; Homer, 2022, p. 339; Ignacio et al., 2022, p. 10), low desire for new ties, weak mutual responsibility (Pham et al., 2021, p. 40), unequal roles, poor relationships, and member distraction demanded discipline/control (Donelan & Kear, 2023, p. 455).
6.3 Emotional Ruptures
Emotional ruptures centred on limited expression: video conferences deemed inadequate for personal sharing (Caskurlu et al., 2020, p. 6), weak connections to members (Pham et al., 2021, p. 40), and negative feelings (Donelan & Kear, 2023, p. 455).
6.4 Limitations
This paper confirms online/distance learners experience cognitive, social, and emotional ruptures in digital group work. Evaluated studies, however, did not exclusively target student perceptions, limiting depth. Conducted across countries, they mixed pandemic-shift and regular online students. Timing of group work sentiments remains unclear—preexisting negatives may have biased views.
7 Conclusion
This investigation clarifies the extent to which online and distance learners experience cognitive, social, and/or emotional ruptures during digital group work. Findings indicate that presence-based group work cannot be transferred to digital formats without adaptations. Cognitive ruptures manifest throughout the process: from task and problem identification to resolution. Institutional organisation of group work poses difficulties for students. Social ruptures also arise during online teamwork: unfamiliarity, detachment, unreliability, and weak responsibility disrupt open communication and group cohesion. Intra-group management likewise presents challenges. The emotional dimension remains underexplored: yet the study reveals ruptures from negative feelings, absent emotional connections, and limited expression opportunities. Given ruptures' complex interplay—where dimensions likely influence each other mutually—further research is desirable. Qualitative interviews could examine rupture phenomena during group work more precisely. Additionally, exploring how attitudes, beliefs, and convictions shape perceptions of digital group work and learning processes would prove insightful. Participation and engagement play major roles; investigating preconditions and effects of social ruptures could yield key insights.
Practice requires taking distance and online learners' perceived ruptures seriously and grounding formats more firmly in socio-emotional aspects. Prioritising synchronous communication and group formation support could prevent such experiences. Targeted trust- and relationship-building measures, plus greater inclusion of "invisible" participants, could benefit digital group processes. Student feedback and regular exchange on shaping online team work could usefully improve existing formats. Student-perceived ruptures in digital group work must be addressed earnestly in all cases.
8 Bibliography
Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Joumalof Asynchronous LearningNetworks, 5 (2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.24059/oli.v5i2.1875
Aslan, A. (2021). The evaluation ofcollaborative synchronous learning environment within the framework of interaction and community of inquiry: An experimental study. Journal OfPedagogicalResearch, 5 (2), 72-87. https://doi.org/10.33902/ipr.2021269326
Baran, E. (2016). Investigating faculty members’ integration of ICT forteaching in higher education: A multiple case study. Distance Education, 37 (3), 336-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1154781
Camras, L. (1980). [Review of Emotion: A PsychoevolutionarySynthesis, by R. Plut- chik]. The American JournalofPsychology, 93 (4), 751-753. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422394
Caskurlu, S., Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y & Kozan, K. (2020). The qualitative evidence behind the factors impacting online learning experiences as informed by the community of inquiry framework: A thematic synthesis. Computers & Education, 165, 104111. https://doi.org/10.1016/Lcompedu.2020.104111
Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). 20 Years ofthe Community of Inquiry Framework. TechTrends, 64 (4), 557-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00491-7
Chi, M. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
Chi, M., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICPAframework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49 (4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965194
Cleveland-Innes, M. & Campbell, P (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment. The International Review Of Research in Open And Distributed Learning, 13 (4), 269. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1234
Cleveland-Innes, M., Walsh, P., Vaughan, N., & Shea, P (2021, December 16). Emotional presence in Community of Inquiry: A scoping review and Delphi study [Digital thesis]. Athabasca University. http://hdl.handle.net/10791/361
Conrad, D. (2014). 14 Interaction and communication in online learning communities: Toward an engaged and flexible future. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education (pp. 381-402). Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/app/uploads/120233 99Z Zawacki-Richter Anderson 2014-Online Distance Education.pdf
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model forempirically testing new end-userinformation systems: Theoryand results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Dennis, A. & Valacich, J. (1999). Rethinking Media Richness: Towards a Theory of Media Synchronicity. Proceedings Of The 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference On Systems Sciences., HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM ofFull Papers, 10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1999.772701
Dillenbourg, P (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? https://te- learn.hal.science/hal-00190240v1
Donelan, H. & Kear, K. (2023). Online group projects in higher education: persistent challenges and implications for practice. Journal Of Computing in Higher Education, 36 (2), 435-468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09360-7
Evans, T. D., & Haughey, M. (2014). Online Distance Education Models and Research Implications. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education (pp. 1-35). Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/app/uplo- ads/120233 99Z Zawacki-Richter Anderson 2014-Online Distance Education.pdf
Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses. The Internatio- nalReviewOfResearchin Open AndDistributedLearning, 21 (1), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985
Fogelin, R. (2005). The Logic of Deep Disagreements. InformalLogic, 25 (1). https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1040
Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: a conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. InternationalJournalofLifelongEdu- cation, 10 (4), 287-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260137910100403
Garrison, D. R. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in highereducation. The InternetandHigherEducation, 2 (2-3), 87105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 352-355). IGI Global.
Garrison, D. R. (2016,). E-Learning in the 21st Century. In Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667263
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal ofdistance education, 15 (1), 7-23.
Garrison, R., Cleveland-Innes, M. &Vaughan, N. (n.d.). The communityoflnquiry. Col. Retrieved Jun 25, 2025, from https://coi.athabascau.ca/
Garrison, R. (2020, October 18). Communityoflnquiry(Col) frameworkandonline teaching - Reflective teaching in a digital age [Podcast episode]. Buzzsprout. https://reflectiveteaching.buzzsprout.com/1384834/episodes/5950516-dr-randy- garrison-community-of-inquiry-coi-framework-and-online-teaching
Guo, P., Saab, N., Wu, L. & Admiraal, W. (2021). The Community of Inquiry perspective on students’ social presence, cognitive presence, and academic performance in online project-based learning. Journal OfComputer Assisted Learning, 37 (5), 1479-1493. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12586
Hascher, T. & Brandenberger, C. C. (2017b). Emotionen und Lernen im Unterricht. In
Springer eBooks (S. 289-310). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18589-3 16
Hernandez-Selles, N., Munoz-Carril, P.-C., &Gonzalez-Sanmamed, M. (2019). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An analysis ofthe relationship between interaction, emotional support and online collaborative tools. Computers & Education, 136, 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.012
Homer, D. (2022). Mature Students’ Experience: A Community of Inquiry Study during a COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal Of Adult And Continuing Education, 28 (2), 333353. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714221096175
Honig, C. A. & Salmon, D. (n.d.). LearnerPresence Matters: A Learner-Centered Exploration into the CommunityoflnquiryFramework. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1301728
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31 (4), 51-55.
Ignacio, J., Chen, H. & Roy, T. (2022). Advantages and challenges offostering cognitive integration through virtual collaborative learning: a qualitative study. BMC Nursing, 21 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01026-6
Kehr, H. M. (2004). Integrating Implicit Motives, Explicit Motives, and Perceived Abilities: The Compensatory Model ofWork Motivation and Volition. Academy Of Management Review, 29 (3), 479-499. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.13670963
Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschafter Erziehungswissenschaft. (o.D.). 30. DGFE- Kongress Brüche - Callforpapers. Abgerufen am 30.06.2025, von https://dgfe2026.fak11.lmu.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/CfP DGfE- Kongress2026 aktualisiert.pdf
Kraus, M. (2014). Aneinander vorbeigeredet? Zur Rolle von Dissens und polemischer Debatte in der pluralistischen Gesellschaft. In G. Ueding & G. Kalivoda (Hrsg.), Wege modernerRhetorikforschung (pp. 361-380). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110309577/pdf?licenseType=restricted#page=361
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. Learning and Instruction, 1 (1), 1-49.
Moser, H. (2019). Partizipation durch Peer-Education: Selbstbestimmung und Unstetigkeit in schulischen (Medien-)Bildungsprozessen. In A. Zorn, K. Rath, & M. Wimmer (Hrsg.), Peer-Education - Theorie und Praxis Interaktiver Vermittlungsarbeit (pp. 71-84). SpringerVS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25969-4 5
Ng, D. T. K. (2022). What is the metaverse? Definitions, technologies and the community of inquiry. Australasian Journal OfEducational Technology, 38 (4), 190-205. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7945
Pekrun, R. (2017). Emotion, Lernen und Leistung. In Springer eBooks (pp. 215-231). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18589-3 12
Pham, H. C., Hoang, P A., Pham, D. K., Thuan, N. H., & Nguyen, M. N. (2021). Classrooms going digital-evaluating online presence through students’ perception using Community of Inquiry framework. Covid-19 and Education: Learning and Teaching In A Pandemic Constrained Environment.
Shea, P. & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1721-1731. https://doi.org/10.1016Zi.compedu.2010.07.017
Tan, H. R., Chng, W. H., Chonardo, C., Ng, M. T. T. & Fung, F. M. (2020). How Chemists Achieve Active Learning Online During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Using the Community of Inquiry (Col) Framework to Support Remote Teaching. Journal OfChemicalEducation, 97 (9), 2512-2518. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.ichemed.0c00541
Thiessen, M. B. (2015). Examining student satisfaction ofinteraction in online learning: Analyzing student satisfaction using the Community oflnquiry framework (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 10008902)
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmentalsequence in smallgroups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
Wang, X., Pang, H., Wallace, M. P., Wang, Q. & Chen, W. (2022). Learners’ perceived Al presences in Al-supported language learning: a study of Al as a humanized agentfrom community of inquiry. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 37 (4), 814-840. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2056203
Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (2014). Introduction: Research Areas in Online Distance Education. In O. Zawacki-Richter& T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education (pp. 1-35). Athabasca University Press. https://www.au- press.ca/app/uploads/120233 99Z Zawacki-Richter Anderson 2014-On- line Distance Education.pdf
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbookofmetacognition in education (pp. 299-315). Routledge.
[...]
1 Comprehensive overviews are available on Athabasca University's website in Calgary (https://coi.athabascau.ca) and https://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org.
Buy now
- Quote paper
- Daniela Haindl (Author), 2025, Ruptures in Digital Group Work in Online Studies, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1691713
