Online learning offers flexibility and continuity of instruction beyond the traditional classroom. Due to this fact, in recent years it has become deeply integrated into K-12 education, especially post COVID-19. In spring 2020, according to NCES, 77% of U.S. public schools suddenly, without warning, transitioned to fully online formats (2021, p. 3) (see Figure 1). This huge shift highlighted both the potential and the challenges of engaging K-12 students remotely.

Figure 1. During the initial COVID-19 shutdowns, an estimated 77% of U.S. public schools moved classes online, leaving only 23% operating in person (NCES, 2021, p. 3). Such unprecedented reliance on virtual classrooms drew attention to the quality of social interaction and engagement in K-12 online learning.

As someone who has worked in an online K-12 school setting for the past 17 years, I have witnessed firsthand both the struggles and the opportunities that come with facilitating meaningful student interaction in virtual spaces. One consistent theme that emerges in our student feedback is that many learners miss socializing with their peers—a concern so significant that it is often cited as the number one reason students consider leaving our cyber school. This underscores a critical truth: while online education may offer flexibility, it can also lead to social isolation if not intentionally designed to support connection and collaboration. Collaborative learning refers to educational approaches in which students actively work together to explore ideas, solve problems, or create products, with the goal of co-constructing knowledge through shared inquiry and mutual support (Bernard et al., 2009).

One insight that has become increasingly clear through both experience and research is that social interaction design plays a key role in student engagement and learning success (Gao et al., 2024, p. 2). Social interaction design refers to the intentional planning and structuring of communication, collaboration, and interpersonal exchanges in a learning environment to promote engagement, community-building, and effective learning outcomes (Gao et al., 2024; Garrison et al., 2000). Effective social interaction can counterbalance the isolation of distance learning by building a sense of community, thus motivating students to participate and collaborate. Alternatively, poorly designed (or absent) social interaction may leave students disengaged or struggling alone (Piatz, 2021, p. 15).

My 17 years of experience working in an online K-12 School setting has also given me a unique perspective on the importance of teaching students how to interact in a social setting explicitly. The number one complaint offered by educators in my school when they try to design instruction to have students work together collaboratively is that "they [students] sit there and do nothing". This causes the educators to tend to resist incorporating such experiences into their instruction, instead opting for direct instruction activities which are less engaging for the students. However, many of our educators do not take the time to provide explicit instruction for students on how to work in groups and how to respond to each other and engage their peers in meaningful conversation. These educators tend to assume that students already have these skills, especially in the middle school and high school settings.

In an online setting, learner engagement focuses on how actively students participate, are emotionally invested and put forth cognitive effort while working on assigned tasks. Research has shown that engagement is closely tied to social factors: students’ sense of connection to teachers and peers strongly influences their motivation and persistence (Garrison et al., 2000, pp. 89-90). For K-12 students, participation is not just an individual effort but takes place within social contexts—young learners often learn best by interacting with peers through discussion, collaborative exploration, and shared inquiry. The field of collaborative learning (particularly in its online form, often referred to as computer-supported collaborative learning or CSCL) supports the fact that when learners actively work together - sharing ideas, solving problems as a team, providing peer feedback - their understanding can deepen and their skills (communication, critical thinking, etc.) can improve (Bernard et al., 2009, p. 125). Collaborative learning outcomes might include higher achievement on group projects, improved problem-solving abilities, and greater student satisfaction.

Figure 2. The multidisciplinary field of CSCL, Collaboration in Software Engineering classroom - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-multidisciplinary-field-of-CSCL-15_fig1_269218636 [accessed 5 Apr 2025]

The video below highlights some of the benefits of Collaborative Learning, including the development of resilience, peer support, and deeper comprehension. It provides some examples in various classrooms, from math problem-solving to English roundtables, where students actively learn from each other and it shares some teaching methods to make this happen such as structured group work and facilitated discussions.

Video 1: Edutopia. (2012, December 5). Collaborative Learning Builds Deeper Understanding. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWEwv_qobpU

After working in online K-12 education for 17 years, I realize that my experiences shape the way I see online learning. I have witnessed so many students thrive in virtual settings, and I truly believe in the power of online education to help learners succeed. At the same time, I know that my strong connection to this work could make me more likely to focus on the successes and less on the challenges. It's important for me to recognize this possible bias as I reflect on research and practice. To help guard against this, I use strategies like seeking out studies that offer critical perspectives on online learning, asking for feedback from colleagues who have different experiences, and intentionally questioning my own assumptions when analyzing data. Staying aware of my biases and actively challenging them helps me stay open-minded and willing to learn, even when I encounter evidence or ideas that are different from my own experiences.

Social Learning Foundations and Presence in Online Environments

Drawing from Vygotsky's work, socio-constructivist frameworks suggest that understanding develops through conversations and exchanges between people rather than in isolation. In the classroom, this means students learn by discussing ideas with peers and teachers, co-constructing understanding.

Figure 3: Brodie, K. (2024). Lev Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive Development - and the Zone of Proximal Development, https://www.earlyyears.tv/vygotsky-sociocultural-cognitive-development-zpd/

Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) influential Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework applies socio-constructivism to online education, identifying social interaction as a core element. The CoI model consists of three interdependent “presences” necessary for deep learning: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence (pp. 89-92).

Figure 4: (Garrison et al. 2000 p. 88) Elements of an Educational Experience

Social presence is “the ability to project one's personal characteristics into the community of inquiry, thereby presenting themselves to the other participants as ‘real people’” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). Without social presence, students may feel isolated, which can undermine both motivation and comprehension (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 91). Teaching presence involves the design and facilitation of learning experiences, including guiding social interactions, while cognitive presence refers to the extent to which learners are able to construct meaning through reflection and meaningful dialogue. The CoI framework argues that meaningful collaboration occurs at the intersection of these presences, and studies confirm that students in online courses with high social and teaching presence report better engagement and learning outcomes (Arbaugh et al., 2008, pp. 134-136).

The video below discusses how to foster authentic learning experiences in distance education by applying Garrison’s Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Using a campfire analogy, the video emphasizes the critical role of the teaching presence as the “spark” needed to ignite meaningful learning, particularly in the online environment where clear and consistent communication is so important. It compares cognitive presence to the fuel that keeps a fire going, but is consumed in the process, and social presence to “oxygen”, highlighting that without a social presence, the learning environment can feel “lifeless”, much like a fire without oxygen.

Higher E-Learning - Elevate Your Distance Ed. (2020, August 20). The 3 Energies of E-Learning - Garrison Community of Inquiry (CoI) applied to Distance Education [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB3xV70pxtI [Timestamp: 2:17 - 8:17]

Moore’s (1993) framework of three types of interaction — learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content — provides another helpful lens. Learner-learner interaction refers to the communication and collaboration between students, while learner-instructor interaction involves feedback, guidance, and support from teachers. Learner-content interaction, meanwhile, describes the process by which students engage directly with instructional materials (such as readings, videos, or problem sets) to construct understanding independently. While all three forms of interaction are important, research indicates that interventions enhancing learner-learner and learner-instructor interactions tend to have the most pronounced effects on engagement and achievement (Bernard et al., 2009, pp. 125–127).

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework resonates with my own experience working in online K-12 education, where I have seen the importance of social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence in facilitating meaningful learning experiences. One of the biggest challenges in online education is getting the students to class. This does not just mean logging in, but remaining present in an environment where it is very easy to log in and then walk away or focus on some other activity such as television, gaming or even sleeping. Cognitive presence, alone, is not enough, for most students in the K-12 setting, to keep them in class. Social presence and teaching presence, however, do have this effect. If students truly feel that they are interacting with peers - that they can be themselves and let themselves be known to the rest of the class, they are much more likely to remain present and engage in the instruction.

New Learning Ecologies: Affordances and Design Principles

Cope and Kalantzis (2017) extend these foundations to the context of digital learning. They identify “collaborative intelligence” as one of seven key e-learning affordances that can transform education (pp. 31-33). In this context, an affordance refers to a feature or property of a learning environment — often a digital tool or platform — that enables or invites particular types of learning actions (Cope & Kalantzis, 2017, p. 22). Collaborative intelligence, one such affordance, describes the ability of online platforms to connect learners in ways that allow them to contribute to shared knowledge. According to Cope and Kalantzis (2017), education in our technology-driven era has become more interconnected and collaborative, where students develop knowledge by engaging with others and collectively making sense of information. (pp. 22-25).

Figure 5. The 7 e-Affordances in eLearning. Source: Mastroianni, C. (2021, May 12). eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/7-e-affordances-elearning.

Kalantzis and Cope (2010) also introduced the Learning by Design framework, which positions the teacher as a designer of pedagogy in the new media age. This includes creating inclusive and engaging social learning arrangements (p. 203). Their approach encourages varied knowledge processes—experiential, conceptual, analytical, and applied—often implemented through collaborative learning tasks (Kalantzis & Cope, 2010, pp. 204-205).

Learner Engagement and the Mediating Role of Social Presence

Engagement in online learning spans behavioral (participation frequency), emotional (sense of belonging), and cognitive (depth of thought) dimensions. Borup et al.’s (2014) Adolescent Community of Engagement (ACE) framework identifies the roles of student, teacher, peer, and parent as critical contributors to student engagement in online settings (pp. 110-112). The framework suggests that teacher facilitation, peer collaboration, and parental encouragement all support student motivation and involvement.

Figure 6: ACE framework from Borup et al. (2014, p. 111)

The research of Gao et al. (2024) supports these relationships. Their investigation involving 344 middle school students revealed that interactions among peers and between students and teachers affected engagement levels substantially, with social presence being a crucial connecting factor in this process (pp. 3-5). Their structural model confirmed a chain of influence: richer interaction led to stronger social presence, which increased engagement, thereby improving learning efficiency (Gao et al., 2024, pp. 6-7).

Figure 7. Conceptual Model Linking Social Interaction to Learning Outcomes. Adapted from Gao et al. (2024). Interpersonal interactions (with instructor and peers) contribute to learning efficiency (a learning outcome), indirectly, through the underlying mechanisms of social presence and learning engagement​. This model reflects socio-constructivist theory: interactive learning experiences cultivate a sense of community (social presence) and active involvement (engagement), which in turn improve learning.

As someone who has worked closely with students, teachers, and parents in online K-12 education, I have seen firsthand the impact that social interaction can have on student engagement and motivation. This experience has led me to prioritize social interaction design in my own teaching practices and has informed my research question.

Critical Perspectives: Challenges in Designing for Collaboration

While theory and emerging evidence strongly support social-interactive design, it is important to consider critical perspectives and potential challenges, as well. An argument frequently voiced is that online collaborative learning can be difficult to implement effectively, especially in K-12. Common challenges noted in the literature include: lack of student collaborative skills, uneven participation (free-riding), technological difficulties, and overwhelm or disengagement due to poorly structured activities (Ojie-Ahamiojie, 2024) (Le et al 2017). If students are not trained in how to collaborate - for example, how to communicate respectfully, divide tasks, resolve disagreements - group work can devolve into chaos or lead to frustration. Researchers have indeed observed cases where online “group work” consisted of minimal interaction, with students partitioning tasks to work individually (thus defeating the purpose of collaboration) (Le et al 2017). Uneven participation, with some group members contributing very little while others are forced to do most or all of the work, can be exacerbated online if accountability measures are unclear. Additionally, not all students do well in a social learning setting. Introverted or anxious learners might prefer independent work and could feel uncomfortable or unsafe sharing ideas online. This suggests that one size does not fit all - effective social interaction design should be flexible and inclusive of different learner needs.

Figure 8: Strengths and Challenges of Collaborative Learning. Group, collaborative & cooperative learning space. (n.d.). Learning Spaces. https://aspacetoinspire.weebly.com/group-collaborative--cooperative-learning-space.html

Another critique comes from the recognition that quality matters more than quantity of interaction. Simply increasing the number of discussion posts or video calls does not guarantee engagement; what matters is how purposeful and pedagogically sound those interactions are (Ojie-Ahamiojie, 2024b). For instance, a forum that is nominally active but filled with superficial “I agree” posts will not produce much learning. Designing prompts that elicit critical thinking and genuine exchange is an art. Teaching presence plays a big role here: instructors need to actively facilitate discussions, weave student contributions, and ensure that interactions stay on track and substantive (Community of Inquiry, 2024). In K-12, this often means providing more guidance and scaffolding than one might for adult learners. Moreover, some scholars warn that while collaborative learning can be helpful, it may not uniformly improve all outcomes - for example, content mastery might improve, but if collaboration takes too much time to implement, it could reduce the amount of time the teacher has to cover content or allow students to practice skills. It is crucial that a balance of collaborative and individual learning activities is met.

Notably, challenges related to accessibility and fairness can undermine even the most thoughtfully crafted social learning strategies. During pandemic remote learning, many K-12 students faced difficulties such as lack of a quiet space, limited internet or device access, or family responsibilities (e.g. caring for siblings) that impeded their ability to join synchronous sessions or group meetings (National Inventors Hall of Fame, 2025). Those realities serve to widen the digital divide, putting some students at a disadvantage when collaborative tasks assume that all students have the same access to technology. Social design must therefore be sensitive to students’ contexts, offering asynchronous options and flexibility. Cope and Kalantzis discuss that learning should be inclusive, using technology to personalize and differentiate learning experiences as needed (Cope & Kalantzis 2017).

In summary, the conceptual literature suggests that when done right, social interaction design can greatly enhance engagement and collaborative learning outcomes in K-12 online environments. The theoretical rationale is strong and supported by emerging research. At the same time, realizing these benefits in practice requires careful attention to design details and potential challenges. Teachers must cultivate a safe, well-structured online community and be prepared to intervene when problems arise. The next section will delve into a concrete educational case to see how these theoretical concepts play out in a real K-12 online learning scenario.

To illustrate the practical application of social interaction design principles, a case study examining a virtual 7th grade science class conducted during COVID-19 is discussed. This section will outline the case purpose, context, the social interaction design implemented, and the outcomes observed (Piatz, 2022).

Context and Purpose: 7th Grade Virtual Science Class

In this case, a middle school in the United States shifted to a hybrid/remote learning model for the 2020-2021 school year due to COVID-19. Approximately 38% of the school’s middle graders opted for the fully remote track, meaning they learned entirely from home (Piatz, 2022). Science education in this setting faced particular hurdles: hands-on labs were impractical, and maintaining student interest in inquiry-based learning through a screen was difficult. The teacher and school administration recognized that student engagement was at risk under these conditions. Prior research, cited by Piatz, indicated that beyond just delivering content, factors like teacher support, mutual respect, and student agency are key to engagement (2022). Moreover, interactions between students and teachers are strongly linked to motivation (Wentzel, 2012) and interactions among peers can bolster each other’s engagement (Piatz, 2022). With these insights, the teacher’s goal was to implement collaboration strategies to keep online students invested in learning science. In other words, the case was essentially an action research study asking: “Can deliberate social interaction strategies (specifically small-group collaboration) improve remote student engagement and learning in science?” (Piatz, 2022).

Design and Implementation: Collaboration Strategies

Interventions in this class focused on virtual small-group projects. Students were assigned to small teams (facilitated by the teacher) to work on science assignments together, using tools like Google Meet for live meetings and Google Docs for joint assignments (Piatz, 2022). This was a shift from an earlier approach where students primarily did individual work. The collaborative tasks were designed to require interaction - for example, groups conducting a simplified online experiment or solving a problem where each member had a role. The teacher introduced these activities gradually, first training students on how to use Google Meet breakout rooms and how to communicate effectively online. She also established norms. For example, each student was expected to contribute and listen to teammates. The teacher’s role during these collaborations was as a facilitator: monitoring breakout rooms, prompting discussion questions, and helping troubleshoot any issues (both technical and behavioral). In essence, the teacher attempted to create a “community of inquiry” within each small group, hoping to see increased social presence and peer support.

To evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies, the case study collected data through multiple methods: student attitude surveys, individual interviews, and teacher journals (Piatz, 2022). The multiple sources of data were intended to capture both quantitative and qualitative indicators of engagement. For instance, one survey asked students whether they preferred working alone or with others, aiming to gauge initial attitudes toward collaboration. Later surveys and interviews probed how students felt about the group work experience and whether it affected their interest or understanding in science. The teacher’s reflective journal documented her perspective on how the class was progressing under these new social designs.

Outcomes: Learner Engagement and Attitudes

Many of the students in the classroom initially preferred to work alone rather than in groups. In a survey at the start of the year, 93% of the remote 7th graders (26 out of 28 respondents) said they would rather complete assignments on their own than work with classmates (Piatz, 2022). Figure 4 illustrates this stark preference. It was not entirely surprising: these were students/families who had chosen all-remote learning (even when a hybrid option was available), suggesting a degree of self-reliance or concern about group work. Additionally, aversion to group projects among middle schoolers is well-documented (some students cite unequal effort or social anxiety). This initial condition posed a challenge - how to convince such students that collaborating online could be beneficial and enjoyable?

Figure 9: Survey results from the 7th grade virtual science class early in the year showing students’ preferred work mode (Piatz, 2022, p. 16). An overwhelming 93% (26 students) indicated they prefer to complete assignments on their own, versus only 7% (2 students) who preferred working with others. This baseline reflects students’ skepticism toward group work at the start of the intervention.

Over the course of the collaborative activities, there were some positive developments as well as persistent hurdles. On one hand, student feedback in interviews indicated that some began to see value in discussion and peer support. A number of students reported that talking through science problems with classmates helped them understand the material better, aligning with the idea that articulation and explanation in groups can deepen cognitive processing. In fact, by the end of the project, survey responses to a statement “I can learn science online better if I am able to discuss assignments in small groups ” and “I feel that working with others helps to keep me engaged while learning science online” both showed a modest shift toward agreement. This suggests that at least some of the students experienced increased comprehension and engagement due to the social design.

Figure 10: Pre and post survey results indicating student recognition of being able to learn better when collaborating with classmates. (Piatz 2022, p. 19)

Figure 11: Graphical results of pre and post survey questions: I feel that working with others helps to keep me engaged while learning science online. Results indicate that after the treatments, more students felt working with classmates helped keep them engaged. (Piatz 2022. p. 21)

On the other hand, the overall impact on engagement metrics was mixed. The case study’s major finding was somewhat unexpected: “the motivation behind high engagement for students while learning online had little to do with the collaboration strategies implemented.” (Piatz, 2022, p. v) In analyses of the various data, the researchers concluded that simply assigning group work did not automatically translate to higher engagement levels. Some students remained disengaged or on the periphery of group activities, confirming that underlying attitudes and skills play a big role. Crucially, the study found that two factors were far more influential on a student’s engagement and success: (1) the student’s connection with the teacher, and (2) the communication dynamics within their group (Piatz, 2022). In other words, students who felt a strong personal rapport with the teacher (felt supported, noticed, and encouraged) tended to stay engaged, regardless of the specific collaboration tasks. And in group contexts, those groups that actually communicated well and often - sometimes thanks to a proactive member or the teacher’s guidance - were more successful and enjoyed the experience, whereas groups that barely communicated did not reap benefits.

These results highlight that social interaction design is necessary but not sufficient; how it is facilitated and perceived matters greatly. The teacher’s journal notes reflected this: she observed that when she invested time in relationship-building with students (e.g., personal check-ins, expressing care) and coached groups on how to work together, engagement rose. Absent those, some group sessions fell flat. This aligns with other literature suggesting that teacher presence (caring, support) is a cornerstone of online student engagement (Velasquez et al. 2013). For example, Velasquez et al. (2013) documented that online high school teachers who practiced “technology-mediated caring” - sending quick encouragement messages, being responsive, showing empathy - helped students feel connected and motivated, which often translated into more participation. In our case, interviews confirmed that many students “felt more motivated to try hard in science when they believed the teacher really cared and was available to help” Peer interactions, while valuable, could not fully compensate for a weak teacher presence.

Another outcome from the case was the recognition that students need training and time to develop online collaboration skills. The teacher found that early on, students didn’t know how to effectively communicate in the small group setting - there were awkward silences, or one student would dominate while others stayed muted. Over several weeks, with guidance and repeated practice, some groups improved their teamwork. The study’s conclusion explicitly states: “students need to be provided with the time to build a rapport and learn how to effectively communicate with each other within small groups before they can productively engage in any collaboration strategy.” (Piatz, 2022, p. v). This is a key practical insight. It suggests that educators should treat online collaborative competence as a learning outcome in itself - teaching students how to collaborate (netiquette, taking turns, constructive feedback, etc.) is an essential precursor to expecting fruitful collaboration on academic tasks. In this case, by the end of the term, the class had made progress in this regard, but the initial weeks were a steep learning curve.

Finally, the case study did not find a dramatic improvement in traditional academic outcomes (like test scores) during the intervention period - partly confounded by the many challenges of pandemic schooling. However, qualitative outcomes like student confidence in learning online did improve. For example, one survey item “Learning science online this year is going to be hard” saw a notable change: before the collaborative project, about half of the students agreed it would be hard, whereas after experiencing some successful online collaboration and support, over 75% of students disagreed with that statement, indicating they found online science learning more manageable than expected (Piatz, 2022). This suggests that exposure to structured social learning activities and teacher support helped demystify online learning for students, improving their self-efficacy.

Figure 12: Pre and post survey question graphical results showing more than double the number of students disagreed that learning science online was going to be hard in the post treatment survey compared to the pre-treatment survey results indicating a positive outcome regarding their online learning experience, (N=36). (Piatz 2022. p. 17)

Connecting to Broader Practice

The observations from this 7th grade class resonate with findings in other K-12 online learning research. For instance, a systematic review by Borup and colleagues (2020) noted that many K-12 online programs struggle with student isolation and that interventions like mentoring, facilitation of peer interaction, and regular teacher-student communication are common strategies to boost engagement (with varying degrees of success). The case underscores how teacher-student interaction can be a stronger engagement driver than peer interaction alone, a pattern also reported by Liu et al. (2019) in a survey of high school online learners. In that survey, students rated teacher feedback and availability as more critical to staying engaged than peer discussion forums. This doesn’t diminish the value of peer interaction, but it suggests that for younger learners, the teacher often remains the lynchpin in motivating and focusing the group.

The importance of social presence also came through. In the case above, the small groups that bonded effectively—essentially forming their own tight-knit micro-communities—accomplished greater results. Other studies support this: for example, Gao et al indicate that in the middle school studies studied, two types of social interactions (learner - learner and instructor - learner) are significantly and positively correlated with online learning efficiency (2024, p. 10). Such anecdotal evidence indicates that when students create a sense of “we’re in this together,” it can counteract the attrition and low engagement that plague many K-12 online courses.

However, the case also parallels reports of obstacles in online group work. A recurring issue in literature is that many K-12 students (and even adults) are initially resistant to online group projects - they fear others might not pull their weight, or they simply find coordination difficult. Kuo et al. (2014) found that clear structure and prompts from instructors were necessary to get fruitful peer interaction in an online high school context; otherwise, students would default to working alone. In Piatz’s class, the data shows that without structure, 93% default preference was solo work; with structure and time, this improved slightly. .

In summary, the practice case provides a nuanced view: social interaction design can indeed improve online learning experiences, but its implementation must consider student attitudes, provide scaffolding, and be coupled with strong teacher support. It validates much of the theory (the need for presence, the effect on engagement) while also highlighting the effort required to realize those benefits.

Alignment with Theory

The outcomes of the Piatz (2022) case align with several elements of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) and Adolescent Community of Engagement (ACE) frameworks. According to Garrison et al. (2000), collaborative learning is most effective when social, cognitive, and teaching presence are balanced (pp. 90-91). In this case, teaching presence was clearly emphasized through structured group tasks and teacher facilitation. However, social presence—students’ ability to express themselves and feel “real” to others—varied depending on how well student groups communicated (Piatz, 2022, p. 19).

Similarly, Borup et al.’s (2014) ACE model highlights that student engagement is shaped by the combined efforts of teachers, peers, and family (pp. 110-112). The case revealed that while peer collaboration helped, it was the teacher’s consistent encouragement and personalized feedback that sustained student engagement over time (Piatz, 2022, pp. 20-21).

The findings also support Cope and Kalantzis’s (2017) notion that collaborative intelligence depends on both the affordances of the technology and the social dynamics facilitated by the educator (pp. 31-33). In this study, the tools (Google Meet, Google Docs) enabled collaboration, but the outcomes varied based on how those tools were used and how groups were supported.

Limitations and Unrealized Potential

The practice case also revealed limitations of social interaction design. First, the initial reluctance to group work demonstrates the importance of student attitudes and prior experiences in shaping the effectiveness of collaborative strategies (Piatz, 2022, p. 16). Even with scaffolding, not all students embraced peer collaboration, underscoring the need for differentiated approaches.

Second, the case showed that social interaction, while valuable, is not a silver bullet. Engagement was not automatically improved by group work; in fact, some students remained disengaged despite structured collaboration (p. 18). This supports critiques from Kuo et al, who note that collaborative learning can fail without adequate structure, training, and assessment mechanisms (2014).

One unrealized potential in the Case Study was the use of roles or peer evaluation rubrics to distribute responsibility more evenly. As Piatz (2022) noted, some groups experienced uneven participation, a common issue in group work (p. 19). Implementing structured group roles may have mitigated this issue.

The Crucial Role of the Teacher (and Others)

Throughout the included Case Study as well as the theoretical frameworks reviewed, the teacher’s role as pivotal in making social interaction design effective for K-12 learners stands out as a common theme. Theories like CoI include teaching presence for a reason - someone must design, facilitate, and direct the interactions (Community of Inquiry, 2024). In the Case, whenever the teacher actively engaged with a group, that group stayed more on task and felt more accountable. It mirrors findings by Borup et al. (2020) that teachers orchestrating and humanizing the online environment is a top factor for student success. Critics sometimes worry that emphasizing peer collaboration might diminish the role of the teacher. The evidence suggests the opposite: a skilled teacher is even more necessary, albeit in a different capacity. In fact, one could say the teacher’s presence enables effective peer learning by setting the stage and norms. The teacher also steps in to provide one-on-one support to those who need it (which many did, as connection with the teacher was a deciding factor for engagement (Piatz 2022).

The ACE framework’s inclusion of parent engagement is also validated - especially for middle school, parents who encourage their child (“Did you meet with your group? Let’s check that you log in on time.”) make a difference. Not all students had this support, which created discrepancies. Future designs might explicitly involve parents, for example by sending updates on group progress or tips on how they can help their child with remote collaboration.

Looking forward, how can utilize social interaction design to its fullest potential for collaborative learning outcomes? The case study taught us that preparation and scaffolding are key. Future implementations should start with a “social bootcamp” - training students in online communication tools, netiquette, and teamwork strategies. This could involve role-playing scenarios of common issues (like disagreements) and how to resolve them. Investing a week or two in such preparation could make subsequent collaborative work smoother and more beneficial. Artificially Intelligence emergening technologies such as SchoolAI or Brisk could even be used to create spaces where students can practice these interactions and even practice holding a debate with an AI thought partner in a safe environment where students would not fear judgement from their peers as they are learning and developing these new skills.

Emerging technologies could further enhance this early training. Artificial intelligence tools like SchoolAI or Brisk could create simulated practice spaces where students engage in mock discussions, debates, and group decision-making tasks with AI "thought partners". These interactions would provide a safe, low-stakes environment for students to build confidence in collaboration without the fear of peer judgement. In the near future, even more advanced AI-driven adaptive systems could personalize these practice sessions based on each student's communication style, giving targeted feedback to help them grow as collaborators.

Beyond today's emerging tools, radical possibilities are beginning to emerge. Imagine AI driven-adaptive collaboration environments that dynamically group students based on real-time analysis of their skills, communication patterns, and emotional states. Or virtual reality (VR) classrooms where students, represented by avatars, work together in fully immersive digital spaces to solve real-world problems, conduct science experiments, or build shared projects - engaging multiple senses and creating a more embodied social presence than video calls or text based communcation could offer. While these technologies are still developing, they hintat a future where distance is no longer a barrier to rich, authentic collaboration.

Technology tools are rapidly evolving to support social learning. For example, some learning management systems (LMS) now have analytics that can alert a teacher if a student hasn’t been active or if a group’s communication is sparse, prompting timely interventions. The use of structured discussion prompts and collaboration scripts can help to focus interactions more productively. Two examples of this are Kialol Edu (https://www.kialo-edu.com/) and Parlay (https://parlayideas.com/how-it-works/) where AI can be used to help guide these discussions and provide examples of exemplars for students, as well.

There is also potential in leveraging student-led initiatives: empowering students to create study groups or interest-based clubs online can promote voluntary interaction beyond mandated group projects. This taps into students’ intrinsic social motivations (like forming friendships or discussing common interests). If an LMS is used that supports social networking, students might engage in broader communities of practice which extend beyond a single class, possibly spanning multiple courses, grade levels or even schools. Such exposure can enhance collaborative skills and motivation by making learning social in a more organic way.

Another area of future growth is blending synchronous and asynchronous interactions optimally. The Case discussed used Google Meet (synchronous) for group meets; some students might have been shy there but could contribute more in writing asynchronously. A combination can allow multiple modes of participation (some students articulate better in text, others in speech). Discussion board programs such as Padlet (https://padlet.com/), as well as LMS innate discussion boards can be used to leverage this blended model, as well. Ensuring multiple channels (forums, live chats, shared documents) lets each student find a comfortable way to join in, thus improving overall group function.Giving students choice over how they participate respects neurodiversity and different communication prefereances.

Critics rightly note that not all content lends itself equally well to collaboration. Foundational knowledge, such as basic math facts or grammar rules, may still be most efficiently learned independently. Future online classrooms could solve this by combining adaptive learning software for independent mastery with rich collaborative experiences for higher-order application. Students might complete personalized skill-building activities first, and then move into group projects where they apply those skills creatively. In this model, precious synchronous time is reserved for human interaction—debating, problem-solving, building—and not for passive content delivery.

Finally, assessment practices must evolve alongside instructional design. Traditional grading models that focus only on individual performance can inadvertently discourage collaboration. Newer assessment strategies—including peer evaluations, badges for community contributions, group portfolios, and shared reflection tasks—signal that collaboration is itself a valued learning outcome. Some pioneering programs are already piloting portfolio-based assessments where teamwork, leadership in group settings, and communication skills are part of students' final evaluations. Incorporating collaborative competencies into assessment can motivate students to engage seriously and reduce common issues like "free-riding."

In conclusion, social interaction design holds immense promise for transforming K-12 online learning. The theory provides a roadmap—build community, ensure presence, design meaningful collaboration—and the practice shows how to refine this over time. As educators, we must take on the role of intentional community-builders, while also teaching students the skills they need to succeed in digital collaboration. Emerging technologies, from AI-guided discussion partners to immersive VR group workspaces, will increasingly offer new tools to support these goals. Continued research, especially longitudinal studies, will be essential to understanding the long-term impact of social learning designs. Early signs suggest that students who develop strong collaboration skills in online environments are better prepared for the demands of higher education and a workforce that increasingly relies on digital teamwork. Investing in social interaction design is not just about improving engagement today—it is about preparing a generation of learners to thrive together in the digital world of tomorrow.

Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M., & Bethel, E. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 124-138. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844

Borup, J., West, R. E., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. S. (2014). The adolescent community of engagement framework: A lens for research on K-12 online learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 107-129.

Collaborative Learning from a Distance. (2025). National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/blog/trends-stem/distance-collaborative-learning#:~:text=Collaborative%20Learning%20from%20a%20Distance,device%20and%20living%20in

Community of Inquiry. (2024, March 5). Office of Curriculum, Assessment and Teaching Transformation - University at Buffalo. https://www.buffalo.edu/catt/teach/develop/teach/learning-environments/community-of-inquiry.html#:~:text=,social%20processes%20for%20meaningful%20learning

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2017). e-Learning Ecologies: Principles for New Learning and Assessment. Routledge.

Gao, F., Wang, C., Xie, H., & Hong, J. (2024). Social Interaction and Online Learning Efficiency for Middle School Students: The Mediating Role of Social Presence and Learning Engagement. Behavioral Sciences, 14(10), 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14100896

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200-222. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.3.200

Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001

Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2017). Collaborative learning practices: teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 103-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1259389

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2021). U.S. Education in the Time of COVID. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov (data on spring 2020 school modalities) (U.S. Education in the Time of COVID)

Ojie-Ahamiojie, G. (2024, October 16). Using collaborative learning to elevate students’ educational experiences. Faculty Focus | Higher Ed Teaching & Learning. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/using-collaborative-learning-to-elevate-students-educational-experiences/#:~:text=,is%20to%20ensure%20that

Piatz, K. (2022). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Collaboration Strategies on Engagement in a Virtual 7th Grade Science Class during the COVID-19 Pandemic. [Master’s Capstone Project, Montana State University].

Velasquez, A., Graham, C. R., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2013). Caring in a technology-mediated online high school context. Distance Education, 34(1), 97-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.770435

Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (2007). Motivational interventions that work: Themes and remaining issues. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621103