Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30840
Collaborative Research between Malaysian and Australian Universities on Learning Analytics: Challenges and Strategies

Authors: Z. Abdullah, Z. Tasir, S. N. Kew, D. West, D. Toohey


Research on Learning Analytics is progressively developing in the higher education field by concentrating on the process of students' learning. Therefore, a research project between Malaysian and Australian Universities was initiated in 2015 to look at the use of Learning Analytics to support the development of teaching practice. The focal point of this article is to discuss and share the experiences of Malaysian and Australian universities in the process of developing the collaborative research on Learning Analytics. Three aspects of this will be discussed: 1) Establishing an international research project and team members, 2) cross-cultural understandings, and 3) ways of working in relation to the practicalities of the project. This article is intended to benefit other researchers by highlighting the challenges as well as the strategies used in this project to ensure such collaborative research succeeds.

Keywords: Cross-cultural Understanding, collaborative research, academic research project, international research project

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 941


[1] J. van Swet, A. C. Armstrong, and C. Lloyd, “International collaboration as a patchwork quilt: experiences of developing collaborative practice and research in an international masters programme,” Professional Development in Education, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 647-661, 2012.
[2] S. Börjesson, “Collaborative research for sustainable learning: the case of developing innovation capabilities at Volvo Cars.” Action Learning: Research and Practice, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 187-209, 2011.
[3] R. E. Herriott, and W. A. Firestone, “Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability,” Educational Researcher, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 14, 1983.
[4] M. R. Stephen, and L. R. Donna, “Solidarity through collaborative research,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 129-150, 2007.
[5] M. A. Eisenhart, and H. Borko, “In search of an interdisciplinary collaborative design for studying teacher education,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 137–157, 1991.
[6] J. J. Hafernik, D. S. Messerschmitt, and S. Vandrick, “Collaborative research: why and how?,” Educational Researcher, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 31–35, 1997.
[7] J. Amey, and D. F. Brown, Breaking out of the box: interdisciplinary collaboration and faculty work, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2004.
[8] C. Forlin, and M. G. J. Lian, Reform, inclusion and teacher education towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region, Abingdon: Routledge, 2008.
[9] J. Elliott, “Working ‘against the grain’: conversation pieces from the academy about the experience of sustaining collaborative research with teachers (online),” Special edition on pupil disaffection, Pedagogy, culture and society, vol. 10, no. 2, 2002.
[10] M. Alvesson, and K. Skoldberg, " New vistas for qualitative research,” in Reflexive methodology, 2nd ed. London: Sage, 2009.
[11] P. Melissa, S. MaryFriend, and L. Robert, “Distributed collaborative research model,” Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 127-133C, 2009.
[12] C. McLaughlin, “Cambridge SUPER networked learning community,” in Networking practitioner research, Ed. C. McLaughlin, K. Black-Hawkins, D. McIntyre, and A. Townsend. London: Routledge, 2007, pp. 139–46.
[13] S. Kemmis, “Participatory action research and the public sphere,” in The quality of practitioner research: Reflections on the position of the researcher and the researched, Ed. P. Ponte and B.H.J. Smit. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2007, pp. 9–27.
[14] T. Phelan, D. S. Anderson, and P. Bourke, “Educational research in Australia: a bibliometric analysis,” The impact of educational research (Canberra, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs), 2000.
[15] A. E. Austin, “Reviewing the literature on scholarly collaboration: how we can understand collaboration among academic couples,” in Working equal: academic couples as collaborators. E. G. Creamer and Associates. New York: Routledge Falmer, 2001.
[16] J. F. Milem, J. Sherlin, and L. Irwin, “The importance of collegial networks to college and university faculty,” in Working equal: academic couples as collaborators, E. G. Creamer and Associates. New York: Routledge Falmer, 2001.
[17] E. Corley, C. Boardman, and B. Bozeman, “Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies,” Research Policy, vol. 33, pp. 975-993, 2006.
[18] Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council, Environmental research ethics: National principles and guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas. Canberra: ASTEC, 1998.
[19] R. Collins, Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
[20] J. D. Wasser, and L. Bresler, “Working in the interpretive zone: conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams,” Educational Researcher, vol. 25, no.5, pp. 5–15, 1996.
[21] M. V. Angrosino, and K. A. Mays de Pérez, “Rethinking observation: from method to context”, in Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln, Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000.
[22] V. John-Steiner, Creative collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[23] M. Bresciani, “Exploring misunderstanding in collaborative research between a world power and a developing country,” Research and Practice in Assessment, vol. 2, pp. 1–16, 2008.
[24] E. B. Moje, “Changing our minds, changing our bodies: power as embodied in research relations,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 25–42, 2000.
[25] E. J. Whitt, and G. D. Kuh, (1991). “Qualitative methods in a team approach to multiple-institution studies,” Review of Higher Education, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 317, 1991.
[26] T. Platteel, H. Hulshof, P. Ponte, J. van Driel, and N. Verloop. “Forming a collaborative action research partnership,” Educational Action Research, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 429-451, 2010.
[27] J. Habermas, The theory of communicative action: Vol 1. Reason and rationalization of society. London: Heinemann, 1984.
[28] P. Godin, J. Davies, B. Heyman, L. Reynolds, A. Simpson, and M. Floyd. “Opening communicative space: A Habermasian understanding of a user-led participatory research project,” The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 452–69, 2007.
[29] M. Lenerius, “Social Media for Internal Collaboration in Globally Distributed Product Development Teams (Unpublished work style),” unpublished.
[30] M. Gibbs, “Toward a strategy for undertaking cross-cultural collaborative research,” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 14, pp. 673-687, 2001.
[31] L. Savoie‐Zajc, and N. Descamps‐Bednarz, “Action research and collaborative research: their specific contributions to professional development,” Educational Action Research, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 577-596, 2007.
[32] D. Stephens, Culture in education and development. Principles, practice and policy. Cambridge: Symposium Books, 2007.
[33] G. Hofstede, Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
[34] G. Hofstede, and G. J. Hofstede, Cultures and organisations: software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw- Hill, 2005.
[35] Y. S. Lincoln, and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.
[36] M. Oliva, “Shifting landscapes/shifting langue: Qualitative research from the in-between,” Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 6, no.1, pp. 33-57, 2000.
[37] A. Draghici, Human Resources Management. Editura Politehnica, Timisoara, 2007.
[38] A.D. Popescu, C.C. Aldea and A. Draghici, “Misunderstandings in collaborative engineering teams – a way for improving knowledge sharing and interaction”, în R. Nistor, M. Zaharia, C. Gavrea (editori), 5th Conference on Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society (MCCS 2012), Cluj Napoca, Romania, vol. 4 (ISSN 2069-4229), pp. 106-109, Editura Risoprint, 2012.
[39] J. Cummings, and S. Kiesler, “Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations,” Research Policy, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1620-1634, 2007.
[40] X. Wang, J. F. Dannenhoffer, B. D. Davidson, and J. M. Spector, “Design issues in a cross-institutional collaboration on a distance education course,” Distance Education, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 405, 2005.
[41] M. Pedler, and K. Trehan, “Action learning, organisational research and the ‘wicked’ problems,” Action Learning: Research and Practice vol. 5, pp. 203–5, 2008.
[42] D. Tapscott, and A. Williams, V7i.kinomics: How mass communication changes everything. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.
[43] J. Pryor, A. Kuupole, N. Kutor, M. Dunne, and C. Adu-Yeboah, “Exploring the fault lines of cross‐cultural collaborative research,” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 769-782, 2009.
[44] W. N. Isaacs, “Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking and organisational learning,” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 22, pp. 24-39, 1993.
[45] National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979.