Choosing Online Collaborative

SystemsAlbert Ingram, Kent State UniversityRobyn Parker, Kent State University

Key QuestionsWhat is collaboration?

Why is it important in online learning?

How can technology facilitate or hinder good online collaboration in courses?

The Collaborative Technologies Learning

Community at KSUExploring collaboration, functions, and

technologies

Functions, Uses, and Effects

EE

Functions

Uses

EE

Effects

Theoretical BaseMedia Richness Theory

Richness = information carrying capacity of a medium

Higher uncertainty in an interaction requires greater media richnesse.g. problem solving tasks

Theoretical BaseSocial Presence Theory

Originally -- psychological closeness of media

Now -- behaviors that reduce psychological distance

Two Technologies for Research

WebCT

and

Groove

Obviously there are many others available and they are all changing rapidly

Functions

UsesWhat did people actually use?

Usage logs (survey presented immediately after classes)97 students349 responses; 265 for WebCT and Groove

Findings Read Discussion Board

Over 75% of Groove users entered to read discussion board Less than 47% of WebCT users

Post on Discussion Board 51% of Groove users went there to post to discussion

boards 26% of WebCT users

Share Documents 35% Groove 8% WebCT

Differences could be due either to technology or to how it was used in individual classes

Other FindingsSee what’s new:

84% Groove89% WebCT

Connect with classmates 40% Groove23% WebCT

Other FindingsGet information

79% Groove,91% WebCT

Work on tasks61% Groove47% WebCT

Organize group activity23% Groove, 1% WebCT

ChattingEnter to chat with professors:

8% Groove8% WebCT

Enter to chat with other students: 18% Groove13% WebCT

Actual chatting46% Groove30% WebCT

EffectsSimilar levels of satisfaction with the tool

GrooveSatisfied with: reliability and ease of use, presence

awareness (who is there and what are they doing?), control over space

Problems: bandwidth, access, frequently no one else there

WebCTEasy, reliable, good place to get informationProblems: less immediate interaction (but

expectations lower, too)

Other possible effectsInteraction patterns

Less equal participation?Less equal influence?

Learning outcomesQuality of group performanceApplication of learning to new

situations

What’s next?What effects will “Web 2.0” have on

collaboration?

Wikis, blogs, social networking sites, new versions of CMSs

VR:Second lifeCroquet

Choosing Collaborative Systems

During Instructional design

Based on goals and objectives, audience, etc.

Matching features to needs. Tracking use, measuring effects

Goal, provide natural space where groups can interact and work with few barriers and many supports

A Few ReferencesDaft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information

richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.

Hathorn, L. G. and Ingram, A. L. (2002). Cooperation and collaboration using computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 26(3), 325-247.

Ingram, A. L. and Hathorn, L. G. (2005). Analysis of collaboration in online communications. In C. Howard, J. Boettcher, L. Justice, and K. D. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Online Learning and Technology. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college. Change, 30(4), 26-35.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta analysis. Retrieved 1/11/07 from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html.

Parker, R. E. Bianchi, A. & Cheah, T. Y. (2008). Exploring student and faculty perceptions of technology in education. Education, Technology & Society, 11(2).

Parker, R. E., Ingram, A. & Cheah, T. (2005, March). Collaborative technology use in higher education settings. Paper presented at the international meeting of Computer Supported Interaction (CSI). Oxford, OH.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2). Retrieved 2/29//08 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/ rourke_et_al.html.

Shaw, B. Scheufele, D. A., & Catalana, S. (2007). The role of presence awareness in organizational communication: An exploratory field experiment. Behavior & Technology, 26(5), 377-384.

Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research is telling us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education, Practice and Direction, vol. 4. (pp. 13-45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.