the role of cultural diversity and leadership in computer-supported collaborative learning: a...

The role of cultural diversity and leadership in computer-supported

collaborative learning: a content analysis

John Lim*, Ying Liu

School of Computing, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117543, Singapore

Received 10 December 2004; revised 18 March 2005; accepted 23 March 2005

Available online 23 May 2005

Abstract

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies are increasingly being used to support collaborative learning in groups. Its

potential to shift the traditional pedagogical paradigm triggers considerable amount of research. However, very few of the research studies

focus on the social interactions and their influences on the learning process, which are crucial to understanding computer-supported

collaborative learning (CSCL). This paper reports on a laboratory experiment with a 2!2 factorial design, conducted to investigate the

influences of cultural diversity and leadership availability on the CSCL process using a content analysis approach. With the mediation of

CMC systems, cultural diversity is found to engender more informational influences but reduce normative influences. Leadership has a

positive effect on both normative and informational influences. Taking into account the learning outcomes, it is evident that the influences of

the interaction process are closely related to CSCL effectiveness.

q 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) has become

a primary focus of educational research in recent years due

to its application in computer-supported collaborative

learning (CSCL) context [1]. Early studies in the field

mainly focused on the quality of collaborative learning

products or individual learning results, but often overlooked

the fact that the outcome is mediated by the quality of group

learning processes [2]. Meanwhile, many social and cultural

factors impact significantly on the interaction process [3]

and are yet to be taken into account when studying CSCL.

The current study explored the interaction process with

manipulation on different social-cultural factors, as well as

discussed its possible impact on learning outcomes. While

many existing investigations upon the learning process

focus more on the cognitive dimension of individuals [4],

this study chose instead to focus on a more neglected

dimension, the social dimension, to explore insights on

learner interactions and attitudes.

0950-5849/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2005.03.006

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C65 6874 6773; fax: C65 6779 4580.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Lim).

The social-cultural factors of interest in this study are

leadership and culture. Whereas some argue that the

anonymity of CMC may reduce the effects of leadership

in CSCL (e.g. [5]), the loosely-bounded nature of computer-

supported learning groups [6] makes leadership in CSCL

increasingly an object of research interest (e.g. [7,8]). CSCL

groups may reap positive group dynamics from the presence

of a leader [9,10] and better performance due to the leader’s

ability to bring in different perspectives [11]. On the other

hand, as CMC increasingly transcends national boundaries

enabling cross-culture collaborations [12], diverse national

cultures inevitably impact on the information sharing

process [13]. The cognitive development differences due

to cultural diversity may result in conflicts. However, the

variety of ideas may in fact motivate the learners to benefit

more from the learning process [14] and overcome the

inherent fallacy of ‘group thinking’ [15] in collaborative

learning. The knowledge on the effects of culture thus

remains an empirical understanding.

As both leadership availability and cultural diversity are

critical factors for CSCL, it is of interest to the current study

to examine the influence they exert upon the learning

process. In general, two types of influences have been

identified and largely studied in the research literature;

these are informational and normative influences (e.g. [16]).

There is close correspondence between the types of

Information and Software Technology 48 (2006) 142–153

www.elsevier.com/locate/infsof

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/infsof

J. Lim, Y. Liu / Information and Software Technology 48 (2006) 142–153 143

influences and the types of articulations [17]. This study

drew on this linkage and employed a coding scheme which

serves as indicators to different types of influences. Our

research questions are:

1.
How does leadership availability influence collaborative
learning processes in computer-mediated environment?

2.
How does cultural diversity affect collaborative learning
processes in computer-mediated environment?

3.
In the CSCL context, what are the implications of these
influences on learning effectiveness?

2. Literature review

CSCL always takes place in the group context, and thus

the study of groups as a whole and in a larger environment

may provide us with different perspectives to understand

CSCL. In this section, important group theories are

examined. Based on the frameworks established in group

studies, the two social-cultural factors, leadership and

cultural diversity, are investigated in the CSCL context,

followed by a close look at their possible influences on

learning process and the linkage between influences and

individual articulations in CSCL process.

2.1. Group theories

Early studies of groups consist of two main streams.

Field theory focuses on individuals and emphasizes the

understanding of group norms, the roles, the articulation

patterns and the bonding that leads to satisfaction and

productivity [19–21]. On the other hand, the interaction

theory focuses more on the group interaction process.

Interaction process analysis (IPA) [18] was the first effective

and extensive attempt to observe group interaction directly

by employing systematic observation categories. Its

generality regardless of the interaction contents makes it

the most widely adopted coding scheme in the related

domain of research.

On top of these two theories, the system theory adopts a

synthetic approach [22,23]. A group is recognized together

with its environment as an ecosystem that behaves

collectively because of the interdependence of its members.

The advent of CMC environment generates enormous

research interest. Adaptive structuration theory, developed

on Structuration theory [24], has been described as one of

the most fully developed theoretical process models of

CMC, focusing upon the on-going group processes involved

in appropriating CMC technologies [25]. Adopting the

social-technology approach (e.g. [26]), the adaptive struc-

turation theory believes that the technology and social

structure shape each other over time [27]. It proposes that

the technology influences the users, but the users likewise

customize the technology through their use and the meaning

in social action that they give [28]. The user’s level of

exposure to certain technology directly affects his behaviors

when interacting with the technology [29]. With sufficient

exposure and experience with computer-mediated learning,

the students are likely to devise mechanisms to overcome

the inherent inadequacies of the computer systems; for

example, emoticons are used to provide nonverbal cues.

Parallel to the social-technology approach is the social-

cultural dimension (e.g. [30–32]). It is not uncommon to

identify many similarities between the theories of groups

and those of collaborative learning on this dimension. An

example is the contact theory [33]. Compared to the system

theory, contact theory also takes into account the environ-

mental factor and the individual factor and yet elucidates in

much more detail the correlations between the factors by

introducing another mediating factor—the individual cog-

nition and affection. Contact theory posits that the social

factors such as culture and status impact on the outcomes of

interaction by influencing individuals’ cognition and

affection. This emphasis shares much similarity with the

social-cultural theories [34] about collaborative learning

where cultural influence in learning process plays an

essential role.

2.2. Collaborative learning process in groups

There are many different perspectives from which one

can investigate the collaborative learning in a group, and

thus many theories and models to explain the observations.

For such a complex set of concepts, it is often useful to

adopt a frame of reference that lays out systematically the

various parts. [35] provide an integrated framework using

an input-process-output (IPO) model. Input variables

include group learning task, group composition, and the

technological environment. Process variables include

interaction and intermediate outcomes. Outcome variables

consist of learning effectiveness and efficiency, satisfac-

tion, and cohesiveness. According to yet another compre-

hensive conceptual model by [3], the group learning

process can be treated as the consequence of four

categories of factors: properties of the group’s members,

their patterned relationships, the task situation and the

broader learning environment. All four categories of

factors may impact on the learning process and thus the

learning outcomes. This model encompasses an exhaustive

set of possible input variables. Given the CSCL environ-

ment, which differs significantly from the traditional

classroom setting, we are especially interested in the

group interaction process with manipulation of two

variables that belong to the first two categories mentioned.

We will discuss these two variables, cultural diversity and

leadership in detail in the following.

2.3. Cultural diversity

Group composition theory posits that heterogeneity is

one of the crucial factors that affect the final outcomes of

J. Lim, Y. Liu / Information and Software Technology 48 (2006) 142–153144

collaborative learning in a group [36,37] Cultural diversity

reflects an important aspect of the heterogeneity of group

members’ properties. Culture here refers to national culture

which is defined by [38] as the collective programming of

the mind that distinguishes the inhabitants of one country

from another. As suggested by the social-cultural theory

[34], culture is closely related to one’s learning process. [39]

summarizes the relationship between learning and culture

by concluding that once people have learnt to learn in a

given way, it is extremely difficult to learn in another way.

Culture reflects the way one learns. Cole and associates

developed this into a contextual theory of cognitive

functions [40], which has as a foundation the idea that

each culture has a unique system of mediated learning

experience. Besides the different cognitive development

systems in different countries, cultural diversity may also

introduce differences in working motivations, values and

norms into a group [29]. Many studies on work motivations

have suggested that countries differ systematically in the

propensity for people to express their proactivity through

work [41], which implies the influence that culture may

have on group members’ motivations.

The dominant theory relating to the homogeneity (or

heterogeneity) of group members is the similarity-attraction

theory [42], which indicates that more homogeneous groups

have less conflict, fewer differences in opinions, faster

communication, and more frequent interactions. On the

other hand, heterogeneous groups generate more varied

opinions, and more creative group decisions. The self-

categorization theory also suggested that people are more

likely to be attracted to those who are similar on

demographical characteristics such as race, age and gender

[43]. In a culturally diversified group, cultural differences

may create uncertainty of predicting others’ feedbacks and

anxiety about negative consequences which may prevent

individuals from interacting and thus participating in the

learning [44].

The surge of using CMC systems in collaborative

learning leads to a widely-held assumption that standardized

communications technology, implemented with competent

professional pedagogy, will constitute sufficient conditions

for successful communications and learning for culturally

diverse cohorts participating. However, researchers began

to delineate the critical role of some intercultural variables

in CSCL process. [45] for example develops the notions of

medium as cultural artefact and electronic cultures-of-use to

address the ostensibly neutral CMC systems. [46] study

found that in an online learning environment, the greater the

gap between learners, the greater the probability for

miscommunication. And this gap can also be illuminated

by studies of second language acquisition [47], because

oftentimes language is used as surrogate for cultural

competency. As CMC systems are frequently text-based in

students’ group learning, verbal or linguistic representations

become the primary communication mechanism. This may

actually reduce the tension experienced by learners who use

a second language to participate in the interaction, and thus

may have a positive effect on the CSCL process on the

account that less anxiety is produced due to perceived

cultural incompetence. At the same time, however,

misunderstanding is more difficult to resolve because of

the lack of nonverbal languages and slow feedback inherent

to CMC systems. In conclusion, CMC systems instead of

removing the cultural elements from collaborative learning

pretty much introduce new complexities, and we can expect

largely different articulation patterns in CSCL of culturally

diverse groups and single culture groups.

2.4. Leadership

Learners in a group possess different roles and system

theorists define a leader in a group as a role, a set of

behaviors expected of a person in the position of directing

the activities of others. R.M. Stogdill [48] defined leader-

ship as the process of influencing the group activities in its

efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement. Therefore,

leadership penetrates the entire interaction process in CSCL

context and influences the patterned relationships among the

group members [3].

In CSCL, a leader may facilitate the learning in four

different levels [14]. First in the task level, a leader helps

decrease uncertainty and maintains the focus by giving

instructions on the directions and goals [49]. Second in the

process level, a leader may resolve process related issues by

alternating between synchronous and asynchronous activi-

ties of the members and thus better pace the discussion [50].

Third in the group development, a leader can also facilitate

the group formation by ensuring evenly distributed

participation [51] and cultivating mutual understanding

among the members. And lastly, group dynamics become

more positive through leaders’ effort to support and

encourage effective and positive group behaviors [9,10].

Such positive behaviors as viewing situations from different

perspectives will help members build new mental models of

the world and thus develop new insights and perceptions

[52]. Moreover, leadership addresses conflicts in the values

people hold [53]. A group with diverse cultures may thus

benefit from the presence of effective leadership.

In CSCL environment, leadership takes on forms that are

different from the traditional face-to-face environment due

to the characteristics of CMC systems used. There is in

general a reduced effect of status because of the low

presence provided by CMC systems, and a leader resembles

more a facilitator. The role of leadership is nevertheless

indispensable. Studies of distributed groups facilitated by

CMC systems show that leadership is of crucial significance

[54,55]. As [6] pointed out, learners in distributed groups

are loose-bound and easily confused about the process due

to lower immediacy of feedback as opposed to face-to-face

(F2F) environment, leadership is more a critical factor for

providing feedback, engaging members and clarifying the

process.

Patterned RelationshipsAvailability of leadership

Learning Process

Normative influenceInformational influenceLearners’ Properties

Cultural diversity in CSCL group

Fig. 1. Research model.


One feature of leadership in CSCL is that, it is usually

formed in an informal group. The leader is not officially

appointed and may not have the legitimate power over the

members. Groups that start without a leader usually

experience two forms of tension initially [56]: primary

and secondary. Primary tension refers to the uneasiness of

the members due to inability to get started. Secondary

tension takes place after the group’s discussion starts and

typically results from conflicts such as struggling over

leader’s role or disagreements. The secondary tension may

not happen if the group self-selects a leader through the

learning process, as what is postulated by System theorists.

In a group without a designated leader (or without a

pronounced leader), which is typical for students groups

which are frequently involved in CSCL, a leader is self-

selected according to three criteria: verbal activity, task

competence and communicative competence.

2.5. Informational and normative influences

The central interest of this study is the two forms of

influences which have been identified and largely studied in

the research literature, i.e. informational and normative

influences [57–59]. In particular, this study focuses on the

impact of cultural diversity and leadership on influences

embedded in the collaborative learning process.

In collaborative learning processes, individual articula-

tions can be categorized according to their general purposes

or functions with regard to the problem solving process.

Early studies divide the articulations into social–emotional

and task-oriented [18], which to some extent correspond to

the two types of learning activities, affective and cognitive

[60]. While social–emotional articulations revolve around

affective issues of group cohesion, tension handling and

personal control, task-oriented articulations address cogni-

tive concerns with the skills, tasks and processes such as

thinking and problem solving. Therefore the notion of task

and social articulations lend themselves aptly in CSCL

context.

Both types of articulations are closely related to the

influences embedded in the learning process. Informational

influence is based on the acceptance of information from

others as evidence about reality, and normative influence is

based on the desire to conform to expectations from other

members [61]. Informational influence theory suggests

that effective influence comes from information sharing in

group discussion. Because information sharing involves

asking for or giving information and persuasive suggestions

and opinions that are largely communicated in attempted

questions and answers [18], the informational influencing

mechanism is more likely to be effected on articulations in

the form of questions and answers [17]. These articulations

focus on the cognitive activities such as clarification,

elaboration, evaluation, etc. By asking more questions and

actively expressing opinions, group members are more

involved in the learning process with more ideas and

information generated [34,62], and thus, more informational

influences.

The normative influence theory posits that effective

influence takes place because members conform to

normatively preferred views reported by other members

in exchange for optimal social rewards such as acceptance

and harmony [63,64]. Since the social rewards can be

described using relationships between group members,

and are directly linked to group members’ internal needs

to conform to the group norms expressed through positive

articulations such as approval, acceptance and agreement

[18], the normative influencing mechanism is more likely

to be effected on positive reactions [17]. Positive

articulations such as showing affinities, agreements and

jokes are believed to release one’s tension, lift up the

motivation and thus help the group collaboration to be

more engaging and cohesive [65]. Therefore, positive

articulations increase the normative influences among the

group members.

In addition, based on the social psychology literature,

some key characteristics are identified for informational and

normative influences [17]. For informational influence, the

main characteristics are information sharing, factual and

task message and rational decision model which are

essentially reflected in activities that ask for and give

information, evaluation and suggestion [18]. Normative

influence, on the other hand, is characterized by group

relationships, morality of care, group norms, preferences

and harmony which are expressed through positive

articulations.

3. Research model and hypotheses

The research model is shown in Fig. 1. We adapted the

framework proposed by [3] by focusing on the two

independent variables of leadership availability and cultural

diversity. Cultural diversity reflects one aspect of the

heterogeneity of group members’ properties, while the

presence of leadership effects on members’ relationships in

a group.

The dependent variables of this study are normative and

informational influences which are manifested through

the two types of articulations respectively. The influences

are not directly measurable. However, positive articulations

can serve as the indicators of normative influences,


while task-oriented articulations of questions and answers

are the underlying measurement for informational influ-

ences. We will examine how leadership availability and

cultural diversity engender different influences in the CSCL

process by looking at the two types of articulations in detail.

3.1. Cultural diversity and influences

Cultural diversity is intricate in a sense as it brings

together different cognitive patterns as well as different

values that may be both conducive and destructive to the

learning process at the same time. Both similarity-attraction

theory [42] and self-categorization theory [43] imply that

members in homogeneous groups have less conflict, fewer

differences in opinions, faster communication, and more

frequent interactions, whereas members in heterogeneous

groups may be more cautious about speaking out. The

collaborative learning in such homogeneous groups will thus

be smoother and easier with less chance for negative feelings

and more for solidarities. Members in heterogeneous groups

differ in perceptions of the environment, motives and

intentions of behaviors, communication norms, etc. which

tend to impede the group’s social cohesion [2]. Therefore,

there may be more normative influences displayed among

members in homogeneous groups than in heterogeneous

groups.

At the same time, the cultural diversity in the group

members has many benefits as well. These include variety of

perspectives, skills, more creative group decisions, and more

conflicts or disagreements as well [66]. The socio-construc-

tive theory postulates that when disagreement occurs

between learners, social factors prevent learners to ignore

conflict and force them to find out a solution, usually through

enquiries and evaluations [67]. Very often, these socio-

cognitive conflicts result in decentralized thinking whereby

different perspectives and alternative solutions are enter-

tained [68], and more frequent attempts of questioning and

answering so as to resolve the conflict. Furthermore, when

the learners become aware of the potential differences

between the group members, for example, different culture

backgrounds, comments will be written with more care to

ensure they should be construed as intended [14], and this

may in fact motivate the learners to explain his points with

more deliberation [95]. In short, cultural diversity may elicit

more informational influences from members during the

interaction. Some argue that when conflicts are not

verbalized, they do not predict positive outcomes, and this

is likely to happen due to anxiety and uncertainty associated

with working with people of different backgrounds. How-

ever, CMC is believed to reduce the sense of anxiety [6] and

thus facilitate the interactions. Therefore, we propose the

following hypotheses:

H1. Heterogeneous group members will exhibit less

normative influence on the learning process than homo-

geneous group members

H2. Heterogeneous group members will exhibit more

informational influence on the learning process than

homogeneous group members

3.2. Leadership availability and influences

Leadership can enable more evenly distributed partici-

pation by paying attention to different views, probing for

more information, providing orientation and summarizing

the progress. With the leader’s guidance, group members

are more efficient in terms of reaching an agreement on the

nature of group task and setting a path for reaching

consensus on crucial issues [69,70]. Leadership is a change

or adaptive process to address conflicts in the values people

hold, or to diminish the gap between the values people stand

for and the reality they face [53]. A leader facilitates

collaboration among members by encouraging them to

engage in desirable behavior that help the group, such as

engaging in one’s assigned group role (i.e. ‘doing one’s

job’) or engaging in voluntary activities to help the group,

and prevent them from undesirable behavior that hurt the

group, such as stirring up antagonism, passive withdrawal

[71]. Effective leadership is able to avert ‘group-thinking’

by remaining neutral and encouraging dialogues and new

ideas [72]. Leadership not only helps engender a more

harmonious learning environment by encouraging positive

interactions, but also encourages more participation from

the members. Therefore, we propose:

H3. Members in groups with leaders will exhibit more

normative influences on the learning process than members

in groups without leaders

H4. Members in groups with leaders will exhibit more

informational influences on the learning process than

members in groups without leaders

4. Research method

4.1. Experimental design

A laboratory experiment with a 2!2 factorial design was

conducted. Forty subjects, undergraduates from a large

university in a country with English as the working

language, were randomly and evenly assigned to the four

treatments, yielding 40 usable data points; the subjects were

all ‘foreign’ students with the same national culture (with

Chinese as native language) who attended the university

under a scholarship program.

In this experiment, each learning group was a virtual

online group that consisted of seven members; however,

only one member in each learning group was a real subject

in this experiment, and all other members were experimen-

tal confederates. This was enabled by the fact that

communication was conducted via the use of a text-based

1 As the confederates strictly followed the scripts, their ‘interactions’

were not coded.


chat room; correspondingly, there was no demand and

opportunity for face-to-face setting. Confederates have been

previously used in studies investigating computer-mediated

groups (e.g. [73]). It is worth pointing out that learning

outcomes were studied at the individual, as opposed to

group, level; the use of confederates did not pose an obstacle

in this regard. Subjects were checked using a post-

experiment question to ensure there was no detection of

confederates.

4.2. Confederate scripting

Confederates’ participation strictly followed a script

designed for each treatment. In heterogeneous groups, all

confederates acted as local students whose English style

closely mimics that of typical local students, while in the

homogeneous groups as foreign students of similar back-

ground as the subjects. All sessions were conducted in

English. Essentially the different roles (local or foreigner)

were manifested by distinguishable use of the English

language in the script [74]. For example, widely recogniz-

able shorthand and slang within certain cultural group were

used so that the subject would react differently upon his/her

perception of the cultural composition of the group during

the learning process. Post-experimental interviews showed

highly matched perceptions in relation to cultural diversity

for the different conditions, thus the manipulation of this

variable was deemed effective.

In treatment groups with a leader, one confederate acted

as the leader and the others as ordinary group members. The

design of the leader’s script closely followed the widely

exerted leadership style among the students. In particular,

the leader made sure that all members had an opportunity to

participate by actively eliciting information from them and

directing the learning procedures, and thus exhibited

informational influences on the learning process. This was

implemented in the script through task-oriented activities by

the leader. The script of the leader also included the positive

social–emotional activities often seen in student leaders

during team projects, such as approval and agreement,

which created the normative influence on the learning

process. On the other hand, all confederates in treatment

groups without a leader acted as ordinary group members

who had less such activities as directing the process or

showing approval to others. A manipulation check on the

leadership treatment was performed through observation of

the discussions and the post-experimental interviews

showed that the presence of the leadership was generally

recognized by the subjects in groups with a leader.

4.3. Learning task and CLS

The current study has addressed only users working for a

short time period and a task in which they had no vested

interest; however, influence of cultural diversity and

leadership may change in the long run. It should be noted

that culture, as operationalized in this work, is restricted to

use of language.

A collaborative learning system was developed to

provide a science lesson about identifying poisonous

mushrooms [75,76]. The system consisted of three

components, reading materials, online quiz, and chat-

room. Instructions were integrated into the system to

ensure that subjects complete the experiment by the

designed procedures. The actual duration for completing

the entire task was around one and half hours. The science

lesson was selected in such a way that the subjects had

generally very little pre-knowledge about it and thus the

measurement on performance would not be confounded.

This design, however, may result in a task in which the

subjects had no vested interest given the short duration.

Therefore, influence of cultural diversity and leadership

may actually change in the long run.

4.4. Experimental procedure

Before the experiment, the subject completed a ques-

tionnaire to ensure no pre-experimental differences in terms

of computer experience [77,78] and collaborative learning

[79]. Next, the subject studied the materials provided by the

system in an individual capacity and took the quiz. This

individual test was instituted to ensure that the subject had

undergone learning of the topic before the group discussion.

The subject then discussed with the other members

(confederates) on the quiz in the text-based chat-room. The

subject was allowed to modify his/her answers on the

individual basis after the discussion. To encourage the subject

to participate actively in the collaboration, he/she was

reminded that the average group performance would be

measured [80]. This was followed by the assessments of

individual performance and satisfaction. For most studies,

learner’s individual performance is measured based on an

examination given after the learning process. Examination

performance is a well-adopted measure of learning perform-

ance, which reflects the level of knowledge and material

acquired or mastered by the learner [81]. The answers to the

quizzes were then used to measure the performance variable.

Finally, the subject completed a questionnaire on their

satisfaction with the process [78,82]. Two types of satisfac-

tion have been well studies in MIS research: satisfaction with

processes and satisfaction with outcomes [83]. In this study,

only satisfaction with the process is assessed.

5. Data analysis

In this study, we adopted Bales content analysis scheme

[18] for coding subjects’ transcripts1. The scheme defines in

Table 1

Influence variables: mean (standard deviation, number of groups)

Cultural

diversity

Process

variables

Leadership availability Total

With leader Without

leader

Hetero-

geneous

Normative

influences

11.50

(4.01, 10)

5.20

(2.74, 10)

8.35

(4.65, 20)

Informational

influences

29.50

(9.35, 10)

18.00

(7.33, 10)

23.75

(10.08, 20)

Homo-

geneous

Normative

influences

10.50

(3.24, 10)

10.70

(2.98, 10)

10.60

(3.03, 20)

Informational

influences

23.50

(8.70, 10)

15.60

(4.33, 10)

19.55

(7.82, 20)

Total Normative

influences

11.00

(3.58, 20)

7.95

(3.97, 20)

9.48

(4.04, 40)

Informational

influences

26.50

(9.31, 20)

16.80

(6.00, 20)

21.65

(9.20, 40)

Table 3

Summary of hypothesis testing

Hypotheses Test results

H1: (Normative influence)

Heterogeneous !Homogeneous

Supported

H2: (Informational influence)

Heterogeneous OHomogeneous

Not Supported

H3: (Normative influence)

With leaders OWithout leaders

Supported

H4: (Informational influence)

With leadersOWithout leaders

Supported


detail different categories of task-oriented and social–

emotional activities including both verbal and nonverbal

interactions. Task-oriented activities are further divided into

questions and answers, and social–emotional activities

consist of positive and negative interactions. Every sentence

typed by the subject that conveys complete meaning was a

coding unit. Some well-accepted symbols such as emoticons

(e.g. a simple symbol that expresses emotions) have also

been coded as single actions. Some examples of actions

coded are as follows: ‘agree.’, ‘different colour.’, ‘but if he

already feels sick, such pill can make him feel worse.’ ‘ ’.

Two raters completed the training on the coding and

coded the transcripts independently. The overall average

inter-rater reliability is above 0.8. The ANOVA model was

used to analyze the coded data. As informational and

normative influences are not directly measurable, the

frequencies of questions and answers indicated the informa-

tional influences, whereas normative influences were

measured by members’ positive articulations [17]. Table 1

summarizes the descriptive statistics on the two types of

influences. Table 2 reports the results of the ANOVA tests.

Table 3 summarizes the hypothesis testing.

Cultural diversity is found to negatively affect normative

influence (FZ4.71, P!0.05) but to have no significant

effects on informational influence. Leadership is reported

to positively affect both normative influence (FZ8.66,

P!0.01) and informational influence (FZ16.00, P!0.01).

Table 2

Influence variables: ANOVA results

Source Normative influences Informational influences

Mean square F Mean square F

Cultural diversity 50.63 4.71* 176.40 3.00

Leadership

availability

93.03 8.66** 940.90 16.00**

Cultural diversity *

leadership

105.63 9.83** 32.40 0.55

**P!0.01, *P!0.05.

It has also been noted that a significant joint effect from

cultural diversity and leadership is found positively on

normative influence (FZ9.83, P!0.01). The negative

effect of cultural diversity on normative influence is

significant only in groups without leadership (FZ18.43,

P!0.01). The positive impact of leadership, however, is

found to be significant on informational influence in both

heterogeneous groups (FZ9.37, P!0.01) and homo-

geneous groups (FZ6.62, P!0.05). Leadership also

significantly promoted normative influence in hetero-

geneous groups (FZ16.84, P!0.01).

Analysis of learning outcomes shows that groups with

leaders have higher performance than those without leaders

and heterogeneous groups have higher satisfaction than

homogeneous groups. However, leadership did not affect

members’ satisfaction and cultural diversity did not make a

difference on group performance. Table 4 shows the

descriptive statistics of cultural diversity and leadership on

the learning outcomes and Table 5 summarizes the ANOVA

test results.

A significant joint effect of cultural diversity and

leadership on performance is found (FZ7.12, P!0.05).

Further analysis reveals that the effects of cultural diversity

are significant only in groups with leadership (FZ13.90,

P!0.01), but not in those without leadership. Also the

positive impact of leadership is found to be significant

merely in heterogeneous groups (FZ19.37, P!0.01), but

not in homogeneous groups. For satisfaction with the

process, cultural diversity is found to have significant joint

effect with leadership (FZ20.54, P!0.01). The effect of

cultural diversity is significant merely in the condition with

leadership (vs. without leadership). Further, the effect of

leadership is found positive in heterogeneous groups while

negative in homogeneous groups.

6. Discussion

A content analysis helped reveal the underlying relation-

ships between the social-cultural factors and the CSCL

process. Further insights are discussed in this section which

brings into the picture the learning outcomes and constructs

a holistic view of CSCL phenomenon.

Table 4

Learning outcomes: mean (standard deviation, number of groups)

Cultural Diversity Outcome variables Leadership availability Total

With leader Without

leader

Heterogeneous Performance 7.05 (1.23, 10) 4.40 (1.45, 10) 5.73 (1.89, 20)

Satisfaction with the process 4.25 (0.33, 10) 3.05 (0.82, 10) 3.88 (0.72, 20)

Homogeneous Performance 5.10 (1.10, 10) 4.90 (1.90, 10) 5.00 (2.52, 20)


Total Performance 6.08 (1.52, 20) 4.65 (1.66, 20) 5.36(1.73, 40)



6.1. Impact of cultural diversity

The diverse cultural backgrounds in heterogeneous group

have in effect reduced the normative influences. While this

result may be consistent with many classroom observations,

members in heterogeneous groups nevertheless showed

higher satisfactions than those in homogeneous group. The

use of CMC technology may help us resolve this seemingly

paradoxical result. In classroom settings, the awareness of

different backgrounds between self and others causes

members in heterogeneous groups to be extra cautious not

to take adventurous steps, and thus the social–emotional

priority is given to self-protection rather than positive

articulations such as solidarity building. Homogeneous

group members are comparably less conservative in

socializing with others, knowing the majorities share the

same values, customs and social structure. However, in the

experiment, the anonymity of CMC systems led to reduced

social presence and thus a less personal learning environment

[84,85], which potentially helped heterogeneous groups to

overcome the evaluation anxiety and uncertainty they may

have expected from past experience in traditional learning

environment [44]. Therefore, this improvement in learning

experience may have led to them indicating higher

satisfaction with the process. For homogeneous groups, the

normative influences were probably based on positive

articulations which may be rather routine and not elaborative,

consistent with less mutual understandings among the

members [86]; this phenomenon can be traced to the

relatively short task duration and the loosely-bound nature

of the CMC collaborative groups [6]. A natural consequence

is poorer experience with the process than what the learners

Table 5

Learning outcomes: ANOVA results

Source Performance Satisfaction with the

process

Mean

square

F Mean

square

F

Cultural Diversity 5.26 2.49 1.91 4.47*

Leadership Availability 20.31 9.63** 0.35 0.82

Cultural Diversity *

Leadership

15.00 7.12* 8.79 20.54**

**P!0.01, *P!0.05.

may have expected. This disappointment may be reflected by

lower satisfaction with the process. As heterogeneous group

members experienced less evaluation apprehension with the

help of CMC system, they became more participative. They

may also have undergone a lower level of ‘conformity to

majority’ [87] than those in homogeneous groups.

However, members in heterogeneous groups did not

exhibit significantly higher level of task-oriented inter-

actions (FZ3.00, P!0.1) (which would otherwise have led

to greater informational influence). They also did not

outperform their counterparts in homogeneous groups. This

result can possibly be attributable to certain characteristics

of the CSCL environment. While reducing the anxiety and

uncertainty brought about by the awareness of cultural

diversity, the absence of various nonverbal and social

context cues to communicate in the CMC situation may

discourage mutual understanding, hamper the exchange of

new information and ideas, and lead to lower performance

[86,88]. Therefore, with both the facilitation and limitation

of CMC systems, members in heterogeneous group failed to

benefit from informational influences which are conducive

to higher performance.

6.2. Impact of leadership

Members in groups with leaders seemed to have enjoyed

a more positive learning environment in terms of normative

influences than those in groups without leaders. However,

they did not show higher satisfaction than their counterparts.

As the role of a leader is to direct the group’s activities

towards the attainment of a goal [89], it is likely that

members were actually motivated implicitly by the leader to

align themselves with the majorities so that more progress

could be quickly attained. In other words, the positive

articulations may not be an accurate indicator of the

members’ intrinsic motivation in participating in the

learning. Leadership is believed to reconcile the conflicts

between the members and encourage collaboration, but the

use of CMC as the communication medium is likely to have

lowered the tension and evaluation anxiety and masked the

possible conflicts in leaderless groups [6]. It is worth

mentioning that CMC system may have reduced the

presence of and effect from the leader, diminishing

the emotional difference a leader may bring to a group.


Therefore, while leadership did engender more normative

influences, it did not necessarily lead to higher satisfaction

of the members in the computer-mediated environment.

Nevertheless, the presence of leadership has produced

more informational influences, which in turn led to higher

performance of homogeneous groups. The frequency of

articulations (questions and answers) from members in

groups with leaders exceeds that in groups without leaders.

In fact, leaders’ facilitation led to considerable reduction of

articulations about how tasks should be carried out. This is

probably because in a group with a leader, the leader would

facilitate the understanding of task nature and the establish-

ment of the procedures for reaching consensus on crucial

issues [69,70]. With less time spent on discussing issues

related to the process per se, and more time on the actual

content of the task, we observed significantly more personal

opinions and introduction of new information in groups with

leaders which are essential to informational influences [90,

91]. To ensure equal participations from more members, the

leader was able to elicit more evaluation, elaboration,

clarification and defense of ideas by which dialogues help to

engage the members in the cognitive process such as

integrating and structuring [92–94]. As the social con-

structivist theory posits [67], participation, interpretation

and dialogue in the learning process help students to

construct knowledge through developing interpretation

about new experiences [93]; the more informational

influences exhibited due to the presence of leadership

effected positively on the members’ performance.

The significant interaction effects of leadership and

cultural diversity on normative influence as well as the

learning outcomes appear to suggest some synergy between

the two factors with the mediation of CMC systems. The

diverse backgrounds and the resulting communication

difficulties in heterogeneous groups make a leader’s guidance

highly desirable by the learners in terms of the satisfaction of

learning experience as well as the success of learning results.

Meanwhile, leadership helps improve the cohesion of the

heterogeneous group by reducing conflicts, encouraging

Table 6

The main messages of the study

Experiment findings

Heterogeneous group members exhibited less normative influence than

homogeneous group members but showed higher satisfaction

Heterogeneous and homogeneous group members exhibited the same level

of informational influence and achieved comparable performance

Members in groups with leaders exhibited more normative influences than

members in groups without leaders, but showed the same level of

satisfaction as their counterparts

Members in groups with leaders exhibited more informational influences

than members in groups without leaders and produced better performance

results

Members in groups that are both heterogeneous and led by leaders

exhibited more normative influence and showed both higher satisfaction

and performance

participation and focusing the group’s attention on the

diversity of problem-solving ideas from each learner in the

group. By complementing each other, both cultural diversity

and leadership maximized their strengths while lessening the

weaknesses, making the combination of both factors in the

CSCL process desirable for higher satisfaction and

performance.

6.3. Implications

Prevalent application of CMC systems in CSCL environ-

ment is shifting the learning paradigm in the traditional

classroom settings. Transforming together with this change

are the possible impacts the social and cultural factors may

have upon the learning process. The cross-cultural colla-

borative learning which is becoming the mode of learning

today enjoys more active participations due to CMC systems,

which diminish the anxiety of culture difference and foster

openness and productivity. Cultural diversity may thus bank

on the maturing CMC technologies to overcome its lack of

positive emotions and enhance its advantage of diversified

ideas and skill sets. While CMC systems ameliorate the

learning process by lending themselves adeptly to the

multicultural environment, they are putting more emphasis

on leadership so as to optimize the learning process. By

creating cohesion and encouraging interaction among the

learners, leaders help eliminate the inherently loose-bounded

nature of CSCL groups without engendering much resistance

from the learners. In an attempt to understand the complexity

of CSCL phenomenon, our study opened up the black box of

the learning process in CSCL context and relationships

between the social-cultural variables and the process. By

discussing the possible impact of the process on the learning

outcomes, we propose that future studies should look more

intensely into the causal relationship between the process and

the outcomes, and thus aim for a holistic understanding of the

complete CSCL process.

The findings and their corresponding messages are

summed up in Table 6.

Main messages

CMC systems may more significantly improve the learning experience for

heterogeneous groups than for homogeneous groups

CMC systems that fail to provide rich nonverbal contents may hamper the

effectiveness of information exchange in heterogeneous groups

CMC systems may mask the possible conflicts among the members in

leaderless groups while reducing the leader’s effects in groups with leaders

In the CSCL environment, leadership may counteract the loose-bounded

group nature and facilitate information exchange and idea generation

The combination of leadership and cultural diversity may help improve the

group cohesion as well as the idea creation, and is thus essential for the

best learning outcomes in the CSCL environment


7. Concluding remarks

A laboratory experiment with a 2!2 factorial design was

conducted to examine the effects of cultural diversity and

leadership on the learning process. The underlying theor-

etical framework was substantiated by group theories.

Within this framework, interaction process analysis was

adapted in the CSCL context to explore the learning process.

This study has provided some insights into the interaction

patterns and learners’ behaviors in a CMC system-enabled

learning environment, and elaborated on the interplay

between the social-cultural variables and the learning

process in this new context. Future development of CMC

technology can capitalize on the findings to achieve optimal

adoption into the social environment. Furthermore, a great

number of recent investigations upon the learning process

adopted a coding scheme that focuses on the cognitive

dimension of individuals [4]. While this approach looks into

much detail about the contents and offers the promise of

recognizing different types of cognitive activities (e.g. [1]),

this study focused more on the social dimension instead so

as to explore the potentials for new insights on learner

articulation patterns and attitudes with less on the specific

content or problem being employed in the group learning.

This study has several limitations, the majority of which

result from the usual limitations of laboratory experiments.

Like many other laboratory experiments, it produces

evidence that may be low in generalizability. The current

study has addressed only users working for a short time

period and a task in which they had no vested interest;

however, influence of cultural diversity and leadership may

change in the long run. It should be noted that culture, as

operationalized in this work, is restricted to use of language.

Several areas have been identified for future research. As

CMC systems have shifted the learning paradigm espoused

in traditional face-to-face settings, social-cultural factors

other than the two employed by this study need to be

re-examined in this new context. Leadership, which was

scripted in this study, may in fact be situational and

displaying different styles so as to further explore its

effectiveness in CSCL environment. Moreover, the learning

process will mediate the effects of independent variables on

the learning outcomes, and thus future research should

investigate the causal relationship between the process and

the outcomes and provide an integrated view on the CSCL

phenomenon.

References

[1] J.B. Pena-Shaff, C. Nicholls, Analyzing student interactions and

meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions,

Computers and Education 42 (2004) 243–265.

[2] M.E. Shaw, Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group

Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981.

[3] J.E. McGrath, Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.

[4] B. Denis, S. Hubert, Collaborative learning in an educational robotics

environment, Computer in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 465–480.

[5] V.J. Dubrovsky, S.B. Kiesler, B.N. Sethna, The equalization

phenomenon: status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face

decision-making groups, Human–Computer Interaction 6 (2) (1991)

119–146.

[6] D. McConnell, Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative

Learning, 2nd ed., Stylus Publishing Inc., VA, 2000.

[7] H. Barki, J. Hartwick, User participation, conflict, and conflict

resolution: the mediating roles of influence, Information Systems

Research 5 (4) (1994) 422–438.

[8] S.R. Williams, R.L. Wilson, Group support systems, power and

influence on an organization: a field study, Decision Sciences 28 (4)

(1997) 911–937.

[9] T. Nelson, E.S. McFadzean, Facilitating problem solving groups:

facilitator competences, Leadership and Organization Development

Journal 19 (2) (1998) 72–82.

[10] F. Rees, The Facilitator Excellence Handbook: Helping People Work

Creatively and Productively Together, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San

Francisco, CA, 1998.

[11] C.G. Green, The impact of cognitive complexity on project leadership

performance, Information and Software Technology 46 (3) (2004)

165–172.

[12] C.Y. Tan, K.K. Wei, R.T. Watson, R.M. Walczuch, Reducing status

effects with computer-mediated communication: evidence from two

distinct national cultures, Journal of Management Information

Systems 15 (1) (1998) 119–142.

[13] B. Shore, Information sharing in global supply chain systems, Journal

of Global Information Technology Management 4 (3) (2001) 27–51.

[14] E. McFadzean, J. McKenzie, Facilitating virtual learning groups: a

practical approach, The Journal of Management Development 20 (6)

(2001) 470–494.

[15] I.L. Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and

Fiascoes, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1982.

[16] M.F. Kaplan, The influencing process in group decision making in:

C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group Processes, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1987,

pp. 189–212.

[17] W. Huang, K.K. Wei, An empirical investigation of the effects of

group support systems (GSS) and task type on group interactions from

an influence perspective, Journal of Management Information

Systems 17 (2) (2000) 181–206.

[18] R.F. Bales, Interaction Process Analysis: a Method for the Study of

Small Groups, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1976.

[19] K. Lewin, in: D. Cartwright (Ed.), Theory in social science: selected

theoretical papers, American Psychological Association, 1997,

Washington, DC, 1951 reprinted.

[20] E. Stivers, S. Wheelan, The Lcwin Legacy: Field Theory in Current

Practice, Springer, New York, 1986.

[21] S. Wheelan, E. Pepitone, V. Abt, Advances in Field Theory, Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA, 1990.

[22] D. Katz, R.L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley,

New York, 1966.

[23] D.I. Cleland, W.R. King, Management: A Systems Approach,

McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972.

[24] A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of

Structuration, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1984.

[25] R.E. Rice, C. Aydin, Attitudes toward new organisational technology:

network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing,

Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (1990) 219–244.

[26] D. Kunda, L. Brooks, Assessing organizational obstacles to

component-based development: a case study approach, Information

and Software Technology 42 (10) (2000) 715–725.

[27] G. Desanctis, M.S. Poole, Capturing the complexity in advanced

technology use: adaptive structuration theory, Organization Science 5

(1994) 121–147.


[28] N.S. Contractor, M.E. Eisenberg, Communication networks and new

media in organizations in: J. Fulk, C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations

and Communication Technology, Sage Publications, London, 1990,

pp. 143–172.

[29] J. Lim, A conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation

support systems, Information and Software Technology 45 (8) (2003)

469–477.

[30] J. Berger, E.G. Cohen, M. Zelditch, Status characteristics and social

interaction, American Sociological Review 37 (1972) 241–255.

[31] M.T. Hallinan, W.N. Kubitschek, The formation of intransitive

friendships, Social Forces 69 (1990) 505–519.

[32] P. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, 1964.

[33] G. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge,

MA, 1954.

[34] L.S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: The Development of Higher

Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,

MA, 1978.

[35] I. Zigurs, K.A. Kozar, An exploratory study of roles in computer-

supported groups, Management Information Systems Quarterly 18 (3)

(1994) 277–297.

[36] Z. Kovacs, Group decision making under uncertainty: group structure

and the shift phenomenon in: H. Brandstatter, J.H. Davis, G. Stocher-

Kreichgauer (Eds.), Contemporary Problems in Group Decision

Making, Academic Press, New York, 1982, pp. 201–214.

[37] N. Vidmar, Effects of group discussion on category width judgment,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 (1974) 187–195.

[38] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in

Work-related Values, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, 1980.

[39] T.Edward Hall, The Silent Language, Random House, Inc., New

York, 1959.

[40] M. Cole, J. Gay, J.A. Glick, D.W. Sharp, The cultural context of

learning and thinking, Basic Books, New York, 1971.

[41] M.F. Peterson, S.A. Ruiz-quintanilla, Cultural socialization as a

source of intrinsic work motivation, Group and Organization

Management 28 (2) (2003) 188–216.

[42] D. Byrne, W. Griffitt, D. Stefaniak, Attraction and similarity of

personality characteristic, Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy 5 (1) (1967) 82–90.

[43] Tajefl, J.C. Turner, An intergrative theory of intergroup conflict in:

W.G. Austin, S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup

Relations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, 1979.

[44] W.B. Gudykunst, Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory:

development and current status in: R.L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural

Communication Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995, pp. 8–51.

[45] S.E. Thorne, Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communi-

cation, Language Learning and Technology 7 (2) (2003) 38–67.

[46] K. Reeder, L.P. Macfadyen, J. Roche, M. Chase, Negotiating cultures

in cyberspace: participation patterns and problematics, Language

Learning and Technology 8 (2) (2004) 88–105.

[47] J. Cummins, Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in

Assessment and Pedagogy, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Eng-

land, 1984.

[48] R.M. Stogdill, Leadership, membership and organization, Psycho-

logical Bulletin 47 (1950) 1–14.

[49] Nunn, D. Delivering General Education Subjects Electronically: Part

One. The NODE, Technologies for Learning, 1998, http://node.on.ca/

tfl/fieldnotes/nunn.html

[50] G.W. Hislop, Structuring Courses for Asynchronous Learning Net-

work, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association

for Information Systems, Indianapolis, IN, 1997.

[51] C. Skala, T.F. Slater, J.P. Adams, Qualitative analysis of collaborative

learning groups in large enrolment introductory astronomy, Astro-

nomical Society of Australia 17 (2000) 185–193.

[52] P.M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the

Learning Organization, Century Business, London, 1990.

[53] B.A. Heifetz, Leadership without Easy Answers, The Belknap Press

of Harvard Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1994.

[54] S.R. Hiltz, D. Dufner, M. Holmes, S. Poole, Distributed group support

systems: social dynamics and design dilemmas, Journal of Organiz-

ational Computing 2 (1) (1991) 135–159.

[55] S.R. Hiltz, M. Turoff, Structuring computer-mediated communication

systems to avoid information overload, Communications of the ACM

7 (1985) 680–689.

[56] E.G. Bormann, Discussion and Group Methods: Theory and Practice,

2nd ed., Harper and Row, New York, 1975.

[57] M.F. Kaplan, E.G. Schaefer, L. Zinkiewicz, Member preferences for

discussion content in anticipate group decisions: effects of type of

issue and group interactive goal, Basic and Applied Social Psychology

15 (4) (1994) 489–508.

[58] J.A. Stoner, A Comparison of Individual and Group Decision

Involving Risk. Master’s thesis, School of Industrial Management,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1961.

[59] D. Cartwright, Determinants of scientific progress: the case of the

risky shift, American Psychology 28 (1973) 222–231.

[60] A. Jones, I. Kim. Learning technologies: affective and social issues in

computer-supported collaborative learning. Computer and Education,

in press.

[61] M. Deutsch, H.B. Gerard, A study of normative and informational

social influences upon individual judgment, Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology 51 (1955) 629–636.

[62] J. Piaget, in: W.F. Overton, J.M. Gallagher (Eds.), The Role of Action

in the Development of Thinking Knowledge and Development:

Advances in Research and Theory vol. 1, Plenum Press, New York,

1977, pp. 17–42.

[63] D.G. Pruitt, Conclusions: toward an understanding of choice shifts in

group discussion, Journal of Personality and social Psychology 20

(1971) 495–510.

[64] G.S. Sanders, R.S. Baron, Is social comparison irrelevant for

producing choice shift?, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

13 (1977) 303–314.

[65] A. Taket, Facilitation: some contributions to theorising the practice of

operational research, The Journal of the Operational Research Society

5 (2) (2002) 126.

[66] M.L. Maznevski, Understanding our differences: performance in

decision-making groups with diverse members, Human Relations 47

(1994) 531–552.

[67] J. Piaget, Judgement and Reasoning in the Child trans., in: M. Warden

(Ed.),, Harcourt, Bruce and World, Inc., New York, 1926.

[68] A.C. Kruger, Peer collaboration: conflict, cooperation, or both?,

Social Development 2 (1993) 167–180.

[69] D.S. Gouran, Variables related to consensus in group discussions of

questions of policy, Speech Monographs 36 (1969) 387–391.

[70] R.F. Bales, F.L. Strodtbeck, Phases in group problem-solving, Journal

of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46 (1951) 485–495.

[71] T.R. Tyler, S. Blader, Cooperation in Groups, Psychology Press,

London, 2000.

[72] D. Hellriegel, J.W. Slocum Jr., R.W. Woodman, Oranizational

Behavior, 9th ed., South-Western College Publishing, Australia, 2001.

[73] T. Connolly, L.M. Jessup, J.S. Valacich, Effects of anonymity and

evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups,

Management Science 36 (1990) 689–703.

[74] S. Romaine, Language in Society: an Introduction to Sociolinguistics,

OUP, Oxford, 1994.

[75] J. Cooper, J. Stone, Gender, computer-assisted learning, and anxiety:

with a little help from a friend, Journal of Educational Computing

Research 15 (1) (1996) 67–91.

[76] J. Lim, Y. Zhong, Cultural Diversity, Leadership, and Collaborative

Learning Systems: An Experimental Study, Proceedings of the 15th

Information Resources Management Association International Con-

ference, New Orleans, 2004 pp. 882–885.

[77] K.M. Hilmer, A.R. Dennis, Stimulating Thinking in Group Decision

Making, Proceedings of 33rd Hawaii International Conference on

System Sciences, Hawaii, 2000.

http://node.on.ca/tfl/fieldnotes/nunn.html

http://node.on.ca/tfl/fieldnotes/nunn.html


[78] J.H. Leuthold, Is Computer-Based Learning Right for Everyone?,

Proceedings of 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences, Hawaii, 1999.

[79] J.A. Ross, The influence of computer communication skills on

participation in a computer conferencing course, Journal of Edu-

cational Computing Research 15 (1) (1996) 37–52.

[80] I. Benbasat, L. Lim, The effects on group, task, context, and

technology variables on the usefulness of group support systems: a

meta-analysis of experimental studies, Small Group Research 24

(1993) 430–462.

[81] E.B. Susman, Cooperative learning: a review of factors that increase

the effectiveness of cooperative computer-based instruction, Journal

of Educational Computing Research 18 (4) (1998) 303–322.

[82] R.J. Ocker, G.J. Yaverbaum, Collaborative learning environments:

exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and

asynchronous computer conferencing settings, Journal of Interactive

Learning Research 12 (4) (2001) 427–448.

[83] J.F. George, G.K. Easton, J.F. Nunamaker Jr., G.B. Northcraft, A

study of collaborative group work with and without computer-based

support, Information Systems Research 11 (4) (1990) 394–415.

[84] D.H. Jonassen, H. Kwon, Communication patterns in computer-

mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving, Educational

Technology Research and Development 49 (1) (2001) 35–51.

[85] P. Light, V. Light, Analysing asynchronous learning interactions:

computer-mediated communication in a conventional undergraduate

setting in: K. Littleton, P. Light (Eds.), Learning with Computers:

Analysing Productive Interaction, Routledge, London, 1999,

pp. 162–178.

[86] P. Bordia, Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a

synthesis of the experimental literature, Journal of Business

Communication 34 (1) (1997) 99–120.

[87] S.E. Asch, Effects of group pressure upon the modification and

distortion of judgment in: H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, Leadership and

Men, Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1951.

[88] S.G. Straus, Getting a clue: the effects of communication media and

information distribution on participation and performance in compu-

ter-mediated and face-to-face groups, Small Group Research 27 (1)

(1996) 115–142.

[89] O. Tead, The Art of Leadership, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1935.

[90] E. Burstein, K. Sentis, Attitude polarization in groups in: R.E. Petty,

T.M. Ostrom, T.C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive Responses in Persuasion,

Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1981, pp. 197–216.

[91] M.F. Kaplan, Discussion polarization effects in a modified jury decision

paradigm: information influences, Sociometry 40 (3) (1997) 262–271.

[92] A.L. Brown, A.S. Palincsar, Guided cooperative learning, and

individual knowledge acquisition, in: L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,

Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser,

Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1989, pp. 393–451.

[93] D. Jonassen, M. Davidson, M. Collins, J. Campbell, B.B. Haag,

Constructivism and computer-mediated communication, American

Journal of Distance Education 9 (2) (1995) 7–25.

[94] Norman, Things That Make Us Smart, Addison-Wesley Publishing,

New York, NY, 1993.

[95] N.M. Webb, Task related verbal interaction and mathematics learning

in small groups, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22

(5) (1991) 366–389.

the role of cultural diversity and leadership in computer-supported collaborative learning: a...

Documents