Choosing Online Collaborative Systems Albert Ingram, Kent State University Robyn Parker, Kent State University

Key Questions What is collaboration? Why is it important in online learning? How can technology facilitate or hinder good online collaboration in courses?

What 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 KSU Exploring collaboration, functions, and technologies

Exploring collaboration, functions, and technologies

Functions, Uses, and Effects E Functions Uses E Effects

Theoretical Base Media Richness Theory Richness = information carrying capacity of a medium Higher uncertainty in an interaction requires greater media richness e.g. problem solving tasks

Media Richness Theory

Richness = information carrying capacity of a medium

Higher uncertainty in an interaction requires greater media richness

e.g. problem solving tasks

Theoretical Base Social Presence Theory Originally -- psychological closeness of media Now -- behaviors that reduce psychological distance

Social 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

WebCT

and

Groove

Functions

Uses What did people actually use? Usage logs (survey presented immediately after classes) 97 students 349 responses; 265 for WebCT and Groove

What did people actually use?

Usage logs (survey presented immediately after classes)

97 students

349 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

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 Findings See what’s new: 84% Groove 89% WebCT Connect with classmates 40% Groove 23% WebCT

See what’s new:

84% Groove

89% WebCT

Connect with classmates

40% Groove

23% WebCT

Other Findings Get information 79% Groove, 91% WebCT Work on tasks 61% Groove 47% WebCT Organize group activity 23% Groove, 1% WebCT

Get information

79% Groove,

91% WebCT

Work on tasks

61% Groove

47% WebCT

Organize group activity

23% Groove,

1% WebCT

Chatting Enter to chat with professors: 8% Groove 8% WebCT Enter to chat with other students: 18% Groove 13% WebCT Actual chatting 46% Groove 30% WebCT

Enter to chat with professors:

8% Groove

8% WebCT

Enter to chat with other students:

18% Groove

13% WebCT

Actual chatting

46% Groove

30% WebCT

Effects Similar levels of satisfaction with the tool Groove Satisfied 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 WebCT Easy, reliable, good place to get information Problems: less immediate interaction (but expectations lower, too)

Similar levels of satisfaction with the tool

Groove

Satisfied 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

WebCT

Easy, reliable, good place to get information

Problems: less immediate interaction (but expectations lower, too)

Other possible effects Interaction patterns Less equal participation? Less equal influence? Learning outcomes Quality of group performance Application of learning to new situations

Interaction patterns

Less equal participation?

Less equal influence?

Learning outcomes

Quality of group performance

Application 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 life Croquet

What effects will “Web 2.0” have on collaboration?

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

VR:

Second life

Croquet

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

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 References Daft, 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.

Daft, 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.

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.

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.