


































Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

25 

 

Cross-Cultural Collaborative Online Learning: 
If You Build it, Will They Come? 

 
Sue-Jen Chen 

 
Edward J. Caropreso 

 
University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA 

 
Chao-Li Hsu 

 
Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages, Taiwan, Province of China 

 
Junfeng Yang 

 
Hangzhou Normal University, China 

 
Abstract 

 
This study, based on cultural and social constructivist learning theories, 
investigated the effects of implementation of the Cross-cultural Online 
Collaborative Learning (COCL) Model to guide educators in designing 
effective cross-cultural online collaborative learning environments and 
experiences. Twenty-eight Chinese and 37 U.S. students participated in 
online discussions involving cultural and instructional topics. An attitude 
survey was administered to assess students’ overall attitudes, feelings, 
and opinions about their cross-cultural collaborative online learning 
experiences. The study results support the overall conclusion that if we 
“build it” students will “come” together.  

 
Introduction 

 
Global internet connectivity and online communication provide opportunities for people 
from different cultural, professional and personal backgrounds to work together as 
members of various groups. Academic institutions continue to pursue ways for students 
from diverse contexts to develop the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in 21st 
century global society. Students should learn and develop both cultural awareness and 
appropriate communication and collaboration skills to effectively interact with people 
from different cultures. 
 
Although online education provides opportunities for culturally diverse teachers and 
learners to work together, participants’ cultural contexts may influence behavior and 
affect interactions and learning in collaborative online learning situations.  
 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

26 

 

In view of the need of a model to guide the design and development of an online 
learning environment and activities for cross-cultural collaborative learning, we first 
devised the Cross-cultural Online Collaborative Learning (COCL) Model grounded in 
social-cultural learning theories and based on empirical data (Chen, Caropreso, & Hsu, 
2008; Chen, Hsu, & Caropreso, 2006). We then implemented the model to design an 
online course for U.S. and Chinese college students’ collaborative learning delivered 
through Blackboard Vista.  
 
The purpose of the study was to evaluate an implementation of the COCL Model in a 
cross-cultural online collaborative learning context. This paper presents the results of 
the study investigating the following questions: 
 

1. What are students’ attitudes, feelings, and opinions about their cross-cultural 
collaborative online learning experience? 

 
2. What are the differences between U.S. and Chinese students in their cross-

cultural collaborative online learning experience, if any? 
 

Theoretical Framework And Related Literature 
 

Individuals from different cultures engage in and expect different communication 
practices and behaviors during interactions in learning environments (Timonen, 
Kuittinen, & Pitkänen, n.d.). Understanding cross-cultural interactions involves studying 
links between culture and communication (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; DeFleur & Ball-
Rokeach, 1982; Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010; Uzuner, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). 
 
Culture and Perception 
 
Individual knowledge construction is based on the combination of prior experience and 
social interaction with sophisticated and competent people with whom individuals 
interact through the use of language or socio-cultural dialogue (Duffy & Jonassen 1992; 
Jonassen, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978); the context in which learning occurs is foremost to 
the learning itself (McMahon, 1997). Culture is learned, therefore, culture becomes the 
context for teaching and learning. Culture reflects a set of common events, values, 
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors for any particular group of individuals. Such individual 
outcomes are the result of specific learning experiences (Hyun, 2006; Miraglia, Law, & 
Collins, 1999; Uzuner, 2009). Since education necessarily occurs within culture (Bruner, 
1996), culture significantly influences instructional planning and design. Rothstein-Fisch, 
Trumbull, Isaac, Daley, and Perez (2003) reflected Vygotsky’s (1978) perspective about 
the mediating role of language and social experience in the development of individual 
knowledge. They stated, “What counts as knowledge or knowing, methods of teaching, 
and means of evaluating students’ learning are all culturally defined … ways classroom 
activities are organized and … teachers communicate reflect and foster certain cultural 
values (p.124).”  
 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

27 

 

People behave according to their perceptions of the world. Cultural experiences affect 
social perception and therefore people’s communication with each other, including the 
potential for misinterpretation based on social misperception (Rohrlich, 1983; Samovar 
& Porter, 2002; Wang, 2007). Oddou and Mendenhall (1984) noted that individuals 
demonstrate preferences for members of a perceived in-group over an out-group; that 
the basis for group identification may vary, including factors such as ethnicity, 
occupation, and religion; and an inverse correlation between frequency of contact 
between members of cultures and the amount of stereotyping.   
 
Knowledge construction and person perceptions will be likely to influence subsequent 
learning, potentially further reinforcing perceived distinctions. Such socio-cultural 
influences could significantly affect teaching and learning in cross-cultural learning 
situations. Thus, the learning environment must be supportive and resourceful to 
facilitate knowledge construction and application (Chen, Hsu, & Caropreso, 2005). 
 
Communication  
 
How we come to know ourselves and our world involves complex social processes of 
communication (DeWine, Gibson, & Smith, 2000); this is also the fundamental context 
within which learning occurs. Broome (1981) noted that the expectation for 
communication differences appears to be the basis for most research and reflection on 
intercultural communication. Rothstein-Fisch et al. (2003) studied the potential for 
shifting teachers’ cognitive orientation with respect to their students’ cultural orientation 
from one of individualistic to a more collectivist orientation as the result of explicit 
training.  They discovered that significant shifts in teachers’ perspectives resulted from 
training in the socio-cultural norms and beliefs of their students’ cultures, and these 
shifts in attitude and orientation lasted long beyond the period of the training in the 
study.  
 
The communication context of internet-based virtual communication typically involves 
written rather than spoken interactions, which lack socio-cultural cues (Roald, 1999) and 
orderliness (Allwood & Schroeder, 2000) of face-to-face interactions. Understanding 
based on appropriate interpretation of print text will more likely occur when participants 
come to the situation with the required cultural capital to allow for mutual, reciprocal 
understanding (Roald, 1999).  Even when participants strive for effective communication 
management, online written conversations were not comparable to conversations in the 
real world of face-to-face communications (Allwood & Schroeder, 2000). Rogers, 
Graham, and Mayes (2007) studied the potential influence of culture in asynchronous 
learning from the perspective of instructional designers. Their findings that instructors’ 
awareness of the potential differences between cultures does not necessarily mean this 
knowledge is integrated into the design of online courses further supports the need for 
overt attention to the relationship between culture and communication.   
 
Teng (2005) studied Taiwanese and U.S. students’ online communication. Her findings 
suggest that a heightened sense of belonging to the learning environment and 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

28 

 

confidence in communication competence led to a greater likelihood of acquisition of 
cross-cultural communication skills; also, an increased sense of belonging to the 
learning community led to heightened confidence during communication with others.  
In another study of the potential cultural influences on learning and communication 
involving Chinese and Finnish human resource development practitioners’ views in a 
cross-cultural e-learning course, Slotte and Tynjälä (2005) concluded that an effective 
learning environment required creating a learning context that supported communication 
and collaboration based on strong pedagogical insight and management. Since 
communication appears to be bound by cultural context, collaboration occurs only if 
communications were understood within the context and carried out through 
interactivity. The primary challenge for collaboration was the team members’ failure to 
understand the cultures of their partners.  
 

Cross-Cultural Online Collaborative Learning (COCL): A Model Overview 
 
Constructivists propose that meaningful learning must involve authentic tasks that 
require intentional information processing and knowledge construction within the context 
of active collaboration between teacher and learners and amongst learners. A 
constructivist learning environment must provide opportunities and tools for learning and 
communication to facilitate interaction and collaboration (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & 
Marra, 2003). Therefore, an effective cross-cultural online learning environment must be 
supportive and resourceful, providing experiences that facilitate individual knowledge 
construction and application. Also, effective cross-cultural online learning tasks and 
activities must provide opportunities for dynamic and reciprocal communication, 
interactions, and collaborations that facilitate knowledge co-construction between 
teacher and learners and among learners prior to and during instruction. 
 
Based on Constructivist theory and empirical framework, we proposed the COCL model 
to guide the design of a cross-cultural online collaborative learning environment and 
activities (Chen et al., 2006). The following graph (Figure 1) illustrates the model’s 
components and how these components interact.   
 
The model addresses two major design components intended to support and facilitate 
learning: the learning environment and learning activities. Each component involves 
several significant features: 
 

1. Designing a supportive and resourceful online learning environment by providing:  
a. technical, learning, and social supports to build student competence and 

comfort with technology, instructional content, and members of the 
learning community, and  

b. rich and appropriate resources to support learning needs. 
   

2. Designing opportunities for dynamic and reciprocal learning activities, involving 
communication, interactions, and collaborations prior to and during instruction 

between instructors at both sites (teacherteacher), among students within the 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

29 

 

cultural group and across cultural groups (studentstudent), and between 
teachers and students within the same cultural group and across cultural groups 

(teacherstudent) to promote learning. 
 

 

Figure 1. Cross-cultural Online Collaborative Learning Model. 

T = Teacher, S = Student,  = Interaction. 
 
Implementation of the Model  
 
The COCL model was used to design the learning environment and activities for an 
undergraduate unit in an online course hosted by a U.S. university. Chinese and U.S. 
students worked collaboratively to study culture and instructional technology issues 
delivered through Blackboard Vista. The model was implemented in four stages 
described below.   
 
Stage 1: Preinstructional planning 
 
Instructors must acquire knowledge of target learners and their cultural backgrounds so 
that they will be able to accurately and effectively interpret, respond to, and manage 
students’ online communication. It is equally important for instructors to acquire 
collaborative skills to effectively work together to design and deliver instructional 
material and activities. The experience of working together may also foster the two 
instructors’ communication and collaboration skills.  
 
The instructors at both sites collaborated to identify the cross-cultural online 
collaboration learning goals, time frame, ideas for learning tasks and activities. 
 

T       T T       S S       S

Site A

Instructor

Site B

Instructor

Site A

Students

Site B

Students

Teaching

Reciprocal 

Communication

Learning



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

30 

 

1. Learning goals were established based on 4.c. and 4.d. of U.S. National 
Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T):  

a. Promote and model digital etiquette and responsible social interactions 
related to the use of technology and information. 

b. Develop and model cultural understanding and global awareness by 
engaging with colleagues and students of other cultures using digital-age 
communication and collaboration tools. 

 

2. A collaboration period of one month was established due to Chinese and U.S. 
time and academic calendar differences. 

 

3. The learning tasks and activities were designed to start with a course orientation 
followed by group learning and discussion of cultural and instructional technology 
issues, and conclude with a post-learning attitude survey.  

 

Stage 2: Instructional planning 
 
Collaborative planning involved the following instructor decisions: 
 

1. Creating a photo class roster including student names, college ranks, majors, 
and personal photos, to be used in self-introduction during course orientation for 
community building; 

 

2. Student self-enrollment into one work group consisting of 5-6 members of both 
cultures per group;  

 

3. Using course orientation to provide Blackboard technical training, cultural 
orientation, and opportunity to get to know each other through student self-
introduction;  

  
4. Using Blackboard to house learning activities, for example asynchronous online 

forums for social activities (getting to know each other through self-introduction) 
and learning activities (Educational Technology Integration), blogs for cultural 
orientation, e-mail for post-instructional survey submission.  

 
The U.S. instructor designed the course content and activities in Blackboard as the 
online learning environment. The Chinese instructor and students were enrolled in 
the Blackboard as guests to participate in the online collaboration.  

 
Stage 3: Designing the learning environment and activities  
 

Support systems.  The intent of providing technical, learning, and social support 
systems was to build students’ comfort with technology, instructional content and group 
membership. Several examples for each support are listed below. 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

31 

 

  
Technical supports.  

 Blackboard orientation and technical support sites provided by Blackboard 
Inc. and the Office of E-learning at the U.S. university.  

 “Ask the instructor” and “S.O.S. Community Support” forums provided in 
Discussion Board for all class members to ask, give, and receive help from 
the instructor and other students. 

 Step-by-step “how-to” job aid for each of the tools required for working in the 
course provided in the course Resources page.  

 Tutorials and handouts for technology tools and software applications 
provided in the course Resources page.    

 Technical FAQ, helpdesk contact information provided in the course 
Resources page.  

 A customized online technical training module focusing only on the 
communication and production tools needed by the cross-cultural learning.  

 
Learning support. 

 Various learning resources such as Content Specific Resources, Online 
Library, Students Work Examples provided in the course Resources page. 

 Groups formed to support each other’s learning.  

 Provided online and offline instructor office hours. 
 
Social support. 

 Social Lounge and other discussion forums designed to provide opportunities 
for social presence and interaction. The Lounge is open any time for students 
to introduce themselves to get to know other students, drop a leisure note or 
carry out a continuous conversation, bid farewell, etc. 

 Groups formed to provide social support to members of group and the 
learning community.  

 Embedded collaboration and interaction in group-supported projects; 
assigning grades for team contribution and collaboration.  

 Encouraged collaboration and interaction among group members to gain 
multiple perspectives and solutions. 

 
Resources.  The following are examples of resources provided to assist students in 

acquiring knowledge about cultures of group members as well as using tools to facilitate 
comfortable communication and collaboration for working together as a learning 
community. 

 Language/communication resources: Online multi-lingual dictionaries, 
language translators, thesaurus, commonly used acronyms and idiomatic 
expressions, and virtual writing/editing centers. 

 Culture/context resources: Providing online encyclopedias for culture-specific 
knowledge bases, Chinese and U.S. culture websites, videos, photos, etc.  



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

32 

 

 Learning content resources: Provided online tutorials for various kinds of 
training, and productivity tools (such as software applications) for completing 
assignments.  
 

Course Orientation 
The course orientation consists of Blackboard technical training, getting acquainted with 
the course site, getting to know other students, and cultural orientation.  
 
Blackboard technical training and getting acquainted with the course site are designed 
in the same package to help students become familiar with Blackboard log-in 
procedures, Blackboard course site structure, tools to be used for learning and 
communication required by the course, and resources for technical help. All the 
activities are hands-on with reference resources.  
 
Getting to know other students required students to post a message in the “Social 
Lounge” class forum for self-introduction, to greet the class and to respond to greetings 
posted by other members in the same group and at least three posts by other class 
members. This activity lasted for one week.  
 
Cultural orientation was a blog that involved discussion and sharing opinions about 
cultural awareness and sensitivity, parent expectations, and cultural holidays. Students 
were provided with web resources related to these topics for discussion. Students were 
encouraged to find additional resources and to use their personal experiences in this 
discussion. Cultural orientation lasted for one week.  
 
Learning Tasks and Activities 
 
Students were required to complete assigned readings about integrating technology into 
curriculum and participated in a group forum to discuss the topic and share or compare 
the current state of educational technology integration in their respective countries. A 
set of discussion activity specifications together with some sample questions were 
provided to guide the discussion.  This unit learning activity lasted for two weeks.   

 
Stage 4: Instructional delivery  
 
Modeling, coaching, and scaffolding instructional strategies were used to support 
delivery of instruction and manage learning activities through two-way communication, 

interaction, and collaboration between instructors (teacherteacher), among students 

(studentstudent), and between teachers and students (teacherstudent) as indicated 
in Figure 1.   
 
Frequent reciprocal communication flowed continuously between the instructors about 
the process and products of students’ learning; at the same time, two-way 
communication, interaction, and collaboration took place among students within the 
same cultural group and across cultural groups. During instruction, a learning 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

33 

 

community was established through instructor and student communication and 
interaction at both sites between all participants.  
 

Method 
 
Participants 
 
Undergraduate students from courses taught at a state university in the southeastern 
U.S. and a provincial normal university in China participated in this study using web-
enhanced instruction involving online discussions about both cultural and academic 
topics. Sixty-five students (all members of all participating courses) took part in this 
research, including 28 Chinese (10 males and 18 females) and 37 U.S. (6 males and 31 
females) students. Most U.S. students were classified as juniors, with some 
sophomores and seniors; ages ranged from late teens to mid-40s. Chinese students 
were designated as juniors, ages ranging from late teens to early 20s. 
 
Instructional Activities 
 
Instructional activities were jointly planned. Since instruction was delivered via 
Blackboard Vista hosted by the U.S. site and English was the principal language for 
communication, instruction was primarily delivered by the U.S. instructor. However, both 
instructors monitored and coached their own group’s learning activities and managed 
local logistics. Time differences typically resulted in asynchronous online discussions to 
better accommodate students’ schedules at both sites.  
 
All students from both sites self-enrolled into one of ten groups consisting of 5-6 
members: 2-3 Chinese and 2-3 American students per group. One week prior to formal 
instruction, Chinese students received Blackboard technical training and “getting 
acquainted with the course site” orientation, which American students had completed at 
the start of the semester. After Chinese students joined the class, all students were 
instructed to complete the “getting to know other students” activities by greeting each 
other at the Social Lounge, and to participate in the cultural orientation blog. Refer to 
the Course Orientation section for details.  
 
Students then participated in the technology integration unit involving two weeks of 
group online learning and discussion. After the instructional unit, students bid farewell to 
each other at the Social Lounge.  
 
Each instructor administered a survey to their respective classes at the conclusion of 
the online collaboration designed to assess student attitudes, feelings, and opinions 
about their cross-cultural, collaborative online learning, based on approximately four 
weeks of online interactions involving a combination of cultural, social and academic 
experiences.  
 
 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

34 

 

Assessment 
 
A mixed-method design involving the collection and analysis of both qualitative and 
quantitative data was used to address the research questions (Richey & Klein, 2007).  A 
multi-part survey was designed to yield both data types.   
 
The American instructor developed a two-part the survey that was administered to both 
classes to assess students’ overall attitudes, feelings, and opinions about their cross-
cultural collaborative online learning experiences. Part A provided quantitative data from 
responses to 14 five-point Likert scale items (5=Strongly Agree, 1=Strongly Disagree).  
The Chinese students’ survey included an extra item, Q0: “I felt comfortable using 
English to communicate with my American team members.” Part B asked students to 
use three adjectives to describe their overall cross-culture online collaborative learning 
experience, the basis for the qualitative data analyses.  
Our first research question about students’ overall attitudes, feelings, and opinions 
about their cross-cultural collaborative online learning experiences was addressed via a 
descriptive analysis of the discrete, ordinal, categorical data. Our second research 
question, assessing the potential differences in responses between the students related 
to country, was addressed via a Mann-Whitney U-test, a nonparametric test for two 
independent samples. Descriptive analysis of categorical data was used to reinforce 
and clarify results from the quantitative analysis.  
 
Based on the implementation of the COCL Model, we expected positive reports about 
students’ cross-cultural online experiences (The 1st research question); in addition, we 
expected the Mann-Whitney test to yield non-significant results, indicating no significant 
differences between these two groups (The 2nd research question).   

 
 

Results 
 
Table 1 presents the results for the attitude survey for U.S. and Chinese students, both 
overall and by country.  
 
Table 1 
 
Median and Mode for Survey Quantitative Questions  

No Survey Items Median Mode 

0 
I felt comfortable using English to 
communicate with my American team 
members. (Chinese students only) 

4.00 3a 

  
All 

N=65 
U.S. 
n=37 

China 
n=28 

All 
N=65 

U.S. 
n=37 

China 
n=28 

1 
I had no technological problem using 
blackboard for online learning and 
communication. 

4.00 5.00 3.00 5 5 3 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

35 

 

2 
Course resources (e.g., utilities, 
tutorials, handouts, sample work) 
helped support my learning needs. 

4.00 5.00 4.00 4 5 3a 

3 
Critiquing blog showcase helped me 
gain different perspectives and 
broaden my knowledge. 

4.00 4.00 4.00 4 4 4 

4 
Blog comments helped improved my 
work and learning. 

4.00 3.50 4.00 4 4 4 

5 
Social Lounge helped acquaint me 
with class peers.  

4.00 4.00 3.00 3 4 3 

6 
Cultural blogs helped foster cultural 
awareness for cross-cultural learning. 

4.00 4.00 4.00 4 4 4 

7 

I had much experience working with 
students from other country before 
this cross-cultural online learning 
experience. 

2.00 2.00 2.00 2 2 2 

8 
I felt I was connected with my group 
to talk and learn together online 

3.00 3.00 3.00 4 4 4 

9 
I felt I was connected with the class 
to talk and learn together online 

4.00 4.00 3.50 4 4 3a 

10 
The discussion with foreign peers 
contributed to my learning of subject 
content. 

4.00 3.00 4.00 4 3a 4 

11 
This cross-cultural collaborative 
learning contributed to my life 
experience. 

4.00 4.00 4.00 4 4 3 

12 
This cross-cultural collaborative 
learning helped expand my global 
perspectives. 

4.00 4.00 4.00 4 4 4 

13 
I would like to have similar cross-
cultural online discussions in other 
courses. 

4.00 4.00 4.00 4 4 4 

14 
Overall, my cross-cultural online 
learning experience was positive. 

4.00 4.00 4.00 4 4 4 

Note.  3a multiple modes occurred for 3 and 4. The table displays only 3, the smallest 
value. 
 
Table 2 presents the summary results of the categorization of Part B qualitative data. 
We decided that an effective strategy to address our research questions would be to 
use three global categories to interpret students’ descriptive data. We believe the two 
fundamental categories, “Positive” and “Negative,” would be generally understandable; 
we included a third category, “Neutral,” anticipating the use of adjectives that could not 
be clearly judged as representative of either category. We derived criteria for our 
interpretations of these three categories from Dictionary.com, a readily available online 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

36 

 

English language resource that provides a wide array of inputs, including a variety of 
dictionary citations, word etymologies, and common usage.  
 
After discussing specific criteria for judging terms to be either “positive” or “negative,” 
we independently rated all 169 terms; terms not clearly classifiable as either positive or 
negative were categorized as neutral. Our initial agreement rate was 94.6% (163/169 
terms); we resolved differences by discussion resulting in 100% agreement on the 
categorization of all 169 terms.  
   
Table 2 
 
Percentage of Categorized Adjectives for Survey Qualitative Question 

 Response rates 

Response Categories Overall U.S. China 

Positive 82.2% (139/169) 82.57% (90/109) 81.67% (49/60) 

Neutral 11.24% (19/169) 9.17% (10/109) 15.0% (9/60) 

Negative 6.5% (11/169) 8.26% (9/109) 3.33% (2/60) 

Note. N = 169 terms (all but one U.S. participant provided 3 terms as per directions); 
U.S., n = 109; China, n = 60.   
 

Discussion 
 
The overall context for discussing our results reflects two important points based on 
Part A of the survey: Q0 (Chinese survey) indicates that Chinese students generally felt 
comfortable using English to communicate with U.S. peers, suggesting few perceived 
language constraints; Q7 (prior experience) indicated that both groups had similarly 
limited prior experience working with students from other cultures before this cross-
cultural online learning experience, suggesting some degree of equivalence across 
participants in reactions to the implementation of the COCL Model. 
 
Our first research question addressed students’ overall interpretations of their cross-
cultural collaborative online learning experience. Survey results from both Parts A 
(Table 1) and B (Table 2) indicate that overall, students had very positive experiences. 
In particular, Part A Q9 (felt connected with the class), Q11 (contributed to life 
experience), Q12 (expanded global experience), Q13 (desire other similar online 
experiences) and Q14 (overall experience) clearly indicate that students across all 
groups believed that they significantly benefited from their collaborative online learning 
experiences. Part B results (Table 2) reinforce this interpretation, both overall and 
across countries, with greater than 81% of all adjectives being positive and less than 
7% of all adjectives being negative; neutral terms typically described aspects of their 
experiences that were procedural or related to implementation without a clear 
evaluation or judgment. Examples of frequently occurring Positive adjectives included: 
interesting, fun, helpful, and valuable. Most Negative adjectives were typically stated 
only once; some examples include: boring, overrated, unsatisfied, and aggravating. 
Neutral adjectives, also typically stated only once, included: quick, project oriented, 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

37 

 

enigmatic, and experienced. The COCL Model as implemented for this course appears 
to strongly contribute to positive learning experiences for both U.S. and Chinese 
students.  
 
Several aspects of the COCL Model asked in Part A of the survey help clarify the overall 
results. For example, Q3 (Critiquing blog showcase), Q4 (Blog comments), and Q6 
(Cultural blogs) reflect specific features of the model that contributed to students’ overall 
positive experiences within and across cultural groups.  
 
Our second research question addressed potential for culture-related differences in 
collaborative online learning experiences; we anticipated no differences based on the 
implementation of the COCL Model. As can be seen in Table 1, on 12 of 14 items 
(85.7%) students from both groups responded similarly; only two of 14 items resulted in 
significant differences between the two student groups by country, Qs 1 and 2. Overall 
this outcome reinforces the interpretation of generally positive influences of the COCL 
Model on students’ learning experiences.  
 
But, significant differences were detected for Q1 and Q2 based on the Mann-Whitney U 
test. Q1, related to technology experiences, revealed significant differences between 
U.S. and Chinese students, U = 280.00, z = -3.32, p < .001. Such differences may have 
resulted from the U.S. students’ greater familiarity with Blackboard as the university’s 
designated online learning system and they had used the system for learning in this 
course for more than 2 months before the Chinese students joined them. Chinese 
students were using Blackboard for the first time in their learning experiences. This 
difference in familiarity with the technology may have been reflected in Chinese 
students’ degree of neutral ratings (Mdn = 3, Mo = 3). The relatively brief training 
introducing the Blackboard environment and tools before the collaboration began may 
have been insufficient to build needed comfort and skills in using technology for 
learning. Though U.S. students indicated significantly less technological difficulty, on 
average neither group appears to have perceived significant limitations related to 
Blackboard use.  
 
Q2 results, relating to course resources, revealed significant differences in the 
perceived degree of support provided by available online resources, U =255.50, z = -
3.69, p < .000; Chinese students rated resources less positively. Many of the online 
resources were intended to support student learning for the entire semester, not just the 
period of cross-cultural collaboration. U.S. students were exposed to and potentially 
more familiar with online resources prior to their online collaborations with their Chinese 
partners, therefore, potentially having a more positive interpretation based on a longer-
term exposure and opportunity to review, understand and apply these resources. 
Apparently, for the Chinese students resources not being directly used during the 
collaboration were perceived to be irrelevant and therefore not supportive of their 
learning. Despite the statistical difference, Chinese students on average rated course 
resources nearly as positively as U.S. students. Differences appear to be related to the 
degree of neutral ratings (Mo = 3) of course resources. 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

38 

 

Conclusions 
 
Cross-cultural collaborative online learning guided by COCL Model facilitates dynamic 
and reciprocal communication and interaction resulting in positive learning outcomes. 
The three support systems specified in the model must be implemented with sufficent 
time for training to build comfort with and skill in  using technology to engage in 
communiucation and learning. In addition, providing sufficient time for members to 
engage in social activities will foster comfort and further interaction in online 
communication and learning. Students must be informed about the availability of 
resources that support learning and be required to use the resources as part of the 
learning activities. Selecting interesting and engaging topics will allow for increased 
interaction and enhanced communication and learning. Finally, learning tasks should be 
loosely-structured (no fixed answer) providing the opportunity for knowledge co-
construction; students from different cultures can interact, collaborate, gain multiple 
perspectives and learn from each other.  
 
Overall, our evidence supports the conclusion that if “we build it,” the cross-cultural 
online learning environment, guided by COCL Model, students will more likely than not 
have positive, engaged, reciprocal learning experiences that build on similarities and 
bridge differences to support their cooperative learning; they will “come” together under 
appropriately facilitating circumstances.   

 
References 

 
Allwood, J., & Schroeder, R. (2000). Intercultural communication in a virtual 

environment. Intercultural Communication, 4. Retrieved from 
http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr4/allwood.htm 

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, 
and socio-cultural components of collaborative learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. 
King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-center technologies for literacy, 
apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Broome, B. J. (1981). Facilitating attitudes and message characteristics in the 
expression of differences in intercultural encounters. International Journal of 
Intercultural Relations, 5, 215-237.  

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  
Chen, S. J., Caropreso, E. J., & Hsu, C. L. (2008). Designing cross-cultural collaborative 

online learning. In T. T. Kidd & H. Song (Ed.), Handbook of research on instructional 
systems & technology (Vol. II, pp. 952-971). Hershey, PA: IGI Global, Inc.  

Chen, S. J., Hsu, C., & Caropreso, E. (2005). Cross-cultural collaborative online 
learning: When the West meets the East. Proceedings of the World Conference on 
E-Learning (E-Learn), 1931-1941. ISBN: 1-880094-57-6. 

Chen, S. J., Hsu, C. L., & Caropreso, E. J. (2006). Cross-cultural collaborative online 
learning: When the West meets the East. International Journal of Technology in 
Teaching and Learning, 2, 17-35.  Retrieved from 
http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/issue0601/Chenetal%20Vol1%20Iss1_17_35.pdf 

http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr4/allwood.htm
http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/issue0601/Chenetal%20Vol1%20Iss1_17_35.pdf


Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

39 

 

DeFleur, M. L., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1982). Theories of mass communication (4th ed.). 
New York: Longman.  

DeWine, S., Gibson, M. K., & Smith, M. J. (2000). Exploring human communication. Los 
Angeles, CA: Roxbury.  

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for 
instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivist and 
the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Hyun, E. (2006). Transforming instruction into pedagogy in negotiation-oriented 
curriculum practice. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 3, 136–164. 

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. 
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of 
instructional theory (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J. L., Moore, J. L., & Maura, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve 
problems with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.  

McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social constructivism and the World Wide Web - A 
paradigm for learning. Paper presented at the Australasian Society for Computers in 
Learning in Tertiary Education. Perth, Australia.  

Miraglia, E., Law, R., & Collins, P. (1999). What is culture? (Learning Commons     
Fundamental Learning Topics). Retrieved from 
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/culture-index.html  

Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. (1984). Person perception in cross-cultural settings: A 
review of cross-cultural and related cognitive literature. International Journal of 
Intercultural Relations, 8, 77-96. 

Parrish P., & Linder-VanBerschot J. A. (2010). Cultural dimensions of learning: 
Addressing the challenges of multicultural instruction. The International Review of 
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11 (2). 
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/809/1497 

Roald, H. (1999). Intercultural communication, the print medium and the ideal of two-
way symmetry in interaction. Intercultural Communication, 2. Retrieved from 
http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr2/roald.htm 

Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, 
strategies, and issues. Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum,   

Rogers, P. C., Graham, C. R., & Mayes, C. T. (2007). Cultural competence and 
instructional design: Exploration research into the delivery of online instruction cross-
culturally. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 197-217. 

Rohrlich, P. E. (1983). Toward a unified conception of intercultural communication: An 
integrated systems approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 191-
209.  

Rothstein-Fisch, C., Trumbull, E., Issac, A., Daley, C., & Perez, A. I. (2003). When 
“helping someone else” is the right answer: Bridging cultures in assessment. Journal 
of Latinos and Education, 2, 123-140.  

Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (Eds.). (2002). Intercultural communication (10th Ed.). 
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.  

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/culture-index.html
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/809/1497
http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr2/roald.htm


Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

40 

 

Slotte, V., & Tynjälä, P. (2005). Communication and collaborative learning at work: 
Views expressed in a cross-cultural e-learning course. International Journal on E-
Learning, 4, 191-207. 

Teng, L. (2005). A cross-cultural communication experience at a higher education 
institution in Taiwan. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 10. Retrieved from 
http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr10/teng.htm 

Timonen, J., Kuittinen, E., & Pitkänen, P. (n.d.). Development of a global online course 
on multicultural education: The case of electra. Retrieved from 
http://cs.joensuu.fi/~jtimon/publications/ELECTRA_final.pdf 

Uzuner, S. (2009). Questions of culture in distance learning: A research review. The 
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (3). Retrieved 
from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/690/1273  

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological 
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  

Wang, M.  (2007) Designing online courses that effectively engage learners from 
diverse cultural backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 294-
311. 

  

http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr10/teng.htm
http://cs.joensuu.fi/~jtimon/publications/ELECTRA_final.pdf
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/690/1273


Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 25-41 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

41 

 

 

About the Authors 

Sue-Jen Chen is an Associate Professor of Instructional Technology in Watson School 
of Education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. She has a Ph.D. in 
Educational Research focused on Instructional Systems from Florida State University. 
She teaches courses on instructional design and evaluation, instructional technology, 
and instructional video production. Dr. Chen’s research interests include learning 
theories and application, online learning and communication, learning environment 
design, cross-cultural collaboration, and technology integration into teaching and 
learning. She can be reached at chensj@uncw.edu. 

Edward J. Caropreso is an Associate Professor of Education in the Specialty Studies 
Department of the Watson School of Education, University of North Carolina, 
Wilmington. He has a MA and PhD in Educational Psychology from the University of 
Georgia, Athens. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on educational 
psychology, human development and learning, and educational research. His current 
research interests involve online learning, cognition and cognitive development, and 
teacher professional development. Eddie can be reached at caropresoe@uncw.edu.  

Chao-Li Hsu is an Associate Professor of Foreign Language Education at Wenzao 
Ursuline College of Languages, Taiwan. She received her doctoral degree in 
Educational Research from Florida State University. She is also Director of the Center 
for Faculty Development at Wenzao where she tries to help faculty members use 
innovative teaching methods, apply instructional technology, produce digital materials, 
and engage in research in order to achieve excellence in teaching quality. She can be 
reached at 97004@mail.wtuc.edu.tw. 

Junfeng Yang is a lecturer of Educational Technology in Educational Technology 
Center at Hangzhou Normal University, China. He is currently pursuing a doctorate of 
Educational Technology at Beijing Normal University. He can be reached at 
yangjunfengphd@gmail.com.  

mailto:chensj@uncw.edu
mailto:caropresoe@uncw.edu
mailto:97004@mail.wtuc.edu.tw
mailto:yangjunfengphd@gmail.com

