- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Student interactions and experiences in online team-working activities in astrophysics and space science

Mark H. Jones*, Sarah M. Chyriwsky, Judith H. Croston, Ulrich C. Kolb, Susanne P. Schwenzer, and Sheona A. Urquhart

  • Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA United Kingdom

  • *Contact author: mark.h.jones@open.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020140 – Published 1 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ldgz-smd6

Abstract

Motivated by the question of how the design of online team-working activities affects learning experiences, we present an analysis of three such activities studied by advanced undergraduate and postgraduate distance learning students in astrophysics and space sciences. The activities incorporate periods of team-working ranging from 1 to 9 weeks and have varied assessment strategies. Our study focuses on participation rates, the nature of student interactions, and the reported student experience and is informed by the content of asynchronous discussion forums and interviews with students. We find that variation in student participation differs between the three activities, and we suggest reasons for this related to activity design. We identify major themes of student interaction, these being related to learning and development, group building, and team self-organization. The incidence of communications in these thematic areas appears similar across all three activities. Our analysis framework includes subcategories of these themes, and interactions indicative of peer learning are found to be a major component of student communications. Such interactions are enhanced at the times at which teams are required to make major decisions to progress their joint work. Interviews with students reveal anxieties about participation in team-work and unequal contributions to group outputs. They also present a range of views about the different assessment models used. Overall, interviewees from all three activities report having positive experiences in their teams and that they see the activities as valuable for their individual learning as well as being useful preparation for future employment.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (51)

  1. P. W. Irving and E. C. Sayre, Conditions for building a community of practice in an advanced physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010109 (2014).
  2. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, J. T. Stanley, and H. Lewandowski, Student ownership of projects in an upper-division optics laboratory course: A multiple case study of successful experiences, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020136 (2017).
  3. A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour, Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development, Sci. Educ. 91, 36 (2007).
  4. A. Ozimek, The future of remote work, Available at SSRN 3638597 (2020).
  5. D. J. Rosen and A. M. Kelly, Working together or alone, near, or far: Social connections and communities of practice in in-person and remote physics laboratories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010105 (2022).
  6. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1991).
  7. L. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978).
  8. J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educ. Res. 18, 32 (1989).
  9. J. Herrington and R. Oliver, An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 48, 23 (2000).
  10. K. Roach, E. Tilley, and J. Mitchell, How authentic does authentic learning have to be?, Higher Educ. Pedagogies 3, 495 (2018).
  11. P. W. Irving and E. C. Sayre, Becoming a physicist: The roles of research, mindsets, and milestones in upper-division student perceptions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020120 (2015).
  12. E. W. Close, J. Conn, and H. G. Close, Becoming physics people: Development of integrated physics identity through the learning assistant experience, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010109 (2016).
  13. C. Fracchiolla, B. Prefontaine, and K. Hinko, Community of practice approach for understanding identity development within informal physics programs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020115 (2020).
  14. P. W. Irving, D. McPadden, and M. D. Caballero, Communities of practice as a curriculum design theory in an introductory physics class for engineers, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020143 (2020).
  15. The Open University, Annual report 2018/2019, https://www2.open.ac.uk/about/annual-report-2018-19/ (2019), accessed: 2024-08-15.
  16. E. Scanlon, Open science: Trends in the development of science learning, Open Learn.: J. Open Distance e-Learn. 26, 97 (2011).
  17. T. Drysdale and N. Braithwaite, An internet of laboratory things, in Proceedings of 2017 4th Experiment at International Conference: Online Experimentation, exp.at 2017 (2017), pp. 236–240.
  18. U. Kolb, The PIRATE facility: At the crossroads of research and teaching, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofís. Ser. Conf. 45, 16 (2014).
  19. U. Kolb, M. Brodeur, N. Braithwaite, and S. Minocha, A robotic telescope for university-level distance teaching, Rob. Telesc. Stud. Res. Educ. Proceed. 1, 127 (2018).
  20. D. York, J. Adelman, J. Anderson Jr., S. Anderson, J. Annis, N. Bahcall, J. Bakken, R. Barkhouser, S. Bastian, E. Berman, W. Boroski et al., The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Technical summary, Astron. J. 120, 1579 (2000).
  21. A. Norton, P. Wheatley, R. West, C. Haswell, R. Street, A. C. Cameron, D. Christian, W. Clarkson, B. Enoch, M. Gallaway et al., New periodic variable stars coincident with ROSAT sources discovered using superWASP, Astron. Astrophys. 467, 785 (2007).
  22. D. L. Pollacco, I. Skillen, A. C. Cameron, D. Christian, C. Hellier, J. Irwin, T. Lister, R. Street, R. G. West, D. Anderson et al., The WASP project and the superWASP cameras, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 118, 1407 (2006).
  23. J. P. Grotzinger, J. Crisp, A. R. Vasavada, R. C. Anderson, C. J. Baker, R. Barry, D. F. Blake, P. Conrad, K. S. Edgett, B. Ferdowski et al., Mars Science Laboratory mission and science investigation, Space Sci. Rev. 170, 5 (2012).
  24. S. Maurice, R. Wiens, M. Saccoccio, B. Barraclough, O. Gasnault, O. Forni, N. Mangold, D. Baratoux, S. Bender, G. Berger et al., The ChemCam instrument suite on the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover: Science objectives and mast unit description, Space Sci. Rev. 170, 95 (2012).
  25. R. C. Wiens, S. Maurice, B. Barraclough, M. Saccoccio, W. C. Barkley, J. F. Bell, S. Bender, J. Bernardin, D. Blaney, J. Blank et al., The ChemCam instrument suite on the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover: Body unit and combined system tests, Space Sci. Rev. 170, 167 (2012).
  26. R. Gellert, R. Rieder, J. Brückner, B. Clark, G. Dreibus, G. Klingelhöfer, G. Lugmair, D. Ming, H. Wänke, A. Yen et al., Alpha particle X-ray spectrometer (APXS): Results from Gusev crater and calibration report, J. Geophys. Res. Planets 111, e02S05 (2006).
  27. C. Urquhart, Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide (Sage Publications Ltd., London, England, 2022), 10.4135/9781526402196.
  28. C. O’Connor and H. Joffe, Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines, Int. J. Qual. Methods 19, 1609406919899220 (2020).
  29. H. Donelan and K. Kear, Creating and collaborating: Students’ and tutors’ perceptions of an online group project, Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 19, 3124 (2018).
  30. V. Nicholas, M. Hirst, S. Chyriwsky, and G. Danby, Multidisciplinary team working in science distance learning, Open Learn. J. Open Dist. e-Learn. 40, 116 (2022).
  31. B. K. Payne, E. Monk-Turner, D. Smith, and M. Sumter, Improving group work: Voices of students, Education 126, 441 (2006).
  32. S. A. Myers, L. M. Bogdan, M. A. Eidsness, A. N. Johnson, M. E. Schoo, N. A. Smith, M. R. Thompson, and B. A. Zackery, Taking a trait approach to understanding college students’ perceptions of group work, Coll. Stud. J. 43, 822 (2009).
  33. M. S. Brodeur, Design priorities for online laboratories in undergraduate practical science, Ph.D. thesis, Open University, 2016.
  34. J. Hilliard, K. Kear, H. Donelan, and C. Heaney, Students’ experiences of anxiety in an assessed, online, collaborative project, Comput. Educ. 143, 103675 (2020).
  35. E. Zhu, Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions, Instr. Sci. 34, 451 (2006).
  36. H. Heo, K. Y. Lim, and Y. Kim, Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning, Comput. Educ. 55, 1383 (2010).
  37. C. N. Gunawardena and F. J. Zittle, Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment, Am. J. Distance Educ. 11, 8 (1997).
  38. M. Biasutti, A coding scheme to analyse the online asynchronous discussion forums of university students, Technol. Pedagogy Educ. 26, 601 (2017).
  39. D. Raine and S. Symons, Problem-based learning: Undergraduate physics by research, Contemp. Phys. 53, 39 (2012).
  40. J. Short, E. Williams, and B. Christie, The Social Psychology of Telecommunications (Wiley, London, England, 1976).
  41. D. R. Garrison, T. Anderson, and W. Archer, Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education, Am. J. Distance Educ. 15, 7 (2001).
  42. J. B. Arbaugh, A. Bangert, and M. Cleveland-Innes, Subject matter effects and the community of inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study, Internet Higher Educ. 13, 37 (2010).
  43. K. Kear, Social presence in online learning communities, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (2010).
  44. S. G. Love and J. E. Bleacher, Crew roles and interactions in scientific space exploration, Acta Astronaut. 90, 318 (2013).
  45. J. Ma and J. V. Nickerson, Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review, ACM Comput. Surv. 38, 7 (2006).
  46. R. Heradio, L. De La Torre, D. Galan, F. J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, and S. Dormido, Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis, Comput. Educ. 98, 14 (2016).
  47. L. S. Post, P. Guo, N. Saab, and W. Admiraal, Effects of remote labs on cognitive, behavioral, and affective learning outcomes in higher education, Comput. Educ. 140, 103596 (2019).
  48. J. E. Corter, S. K. Esche, C. Chassapis, J. Ma, and J. V. Nickerson, Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories, Comput. Educ. 57, 2054 (2011).
  49. R. D. Pea, Learning science through collaborative visualization over the internet, in Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium (2002), Vol. 120, pp. 26–29.
  50. W. R. van Joolingen, T. de Jong, A. W. Lazonder, E. R. Savelsbergh, and S. Manlove, Co-Lab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning, Comput. Hum. Behav. 21, 671 (2005).
  51. M. H. Jones, Student interactions and experiences in online team-working activities in astrophysics and space science - Figure data, The Open University, 10.21954/ou.rd.33416281.v1 (2026).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020140– Published 1 October, 2026
  • Received 25 September 2023
  • Accepted 20 August 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation