Online vs. Blended Team Learning<br />Larry Mack, DBA<br />Co-authors: Lynn Grinnell, PhD Frank Appunn, PhD, Amy Sauers, P...
Introduction<br />Background<br />Online Learning<br />Online Teams<br />Blended classes<br />Theory<br />Education theori...
Introduction<br />Background<br />Online Learning<br />Increasing exponentially <br />Convenient alternative for tradition...
Literature Review<br />Education theories and research<br />Communication theories<br />Research in Technology<br />
Theory<br />Education theories<br />Classroom teams<br />Use of teams increase learning<br />Dysfunctional teams: social l...
Theory<br />Communication theories<br />Interpersonal relationships<br />Equity theory<br />Developmental stages of teams<...
Research Questions<br />Purpose: <br />Identify differences between teams that have some face-to-face opportunities and on...
Methods<br />Online courses sample<br />4 online management/marketing courses<br />30 juniors/seniors – 19 women, 11 men<b...
Methods<br />Instrument - Online survey<br />Debriefing questions based on Kolb’s experiential learning theory<br />Object...
Methods<br />Analysis<br />Content analysis<br />Multiple researchers evaluated data using variables<br />Positive/negativ...
Methods<br />Variables for content analysis<br />
Results: Content Analysis<br />Blended Team Behaviors<br />Online Team Behaviors<br />
Results: Content Analysis<br />
Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Conscientiousnesshighest presence and similarnumber of positive/negative<...
Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Attitude towards teams: similar number of positive/negative<br />Blended ...
Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Both satisfaction and team effectiveness comments high, effectiveness hig...
Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Communication 8th of 15 variables, and positive/negative equal<br />Blend...
Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Learning – 1/3rd of comments negative<br />Blended teams<br />Learning – ...
Results: Content Analysis<br /><ul><li>Online teams
Small number of comments about technology
Mostlynegative
Blended teams
No comments on technology</li></li></ul><li>Grounded Analysis:Key points/issues<br />Online teams<br />Communication (nega...
Conclusions<br />Primary differences between online and blended teams<br />Blended involved face to face meetings<br />Man...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Blendedvsonlineteams (2)

225
-1

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
225
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Blendedvsonlineteams (2)

  1. 1. Online vs. Blended Team Learning<br />Larry Mack, DBA<br />Co-authors: Lynn Grinnell, PhD Frank Appunn, PhD, Amy Sauers, PhD<br />
  2. 2. Introduction<br />Background<br />Online Learning<br />Online Teams<br />Blended classes<br />Theory<br />Education theories<br />Communication theories<br />Technology theories<br />Research Questions<br />Methods<br />Sample<br />Qualitative approaches<br />Results<br />Grounded Theory Analysis<br />Content Analysis<br />Conclusions<br />
  3. 3. Introduction<br />Background<br />Online Learning<br />Increasing exponentially <br />Convenient alternative for traditional face-to-face classes<br />Advantages: <br />Increased flexibility in study time <br />Reduced travel time, fuel use<br />Reduced facilities use<br />Blended classes<br />Alternative for students who want some face-to-face contact<br />Still offers flexibility in completing half the work<br />
  4. 4. Literature Review<br />Education theories and research<br />Communication theories<br />Research in Technology<br />
  5. 5. Theory<br />Education theories<br />Classroom teams<br />Use of teams increase learning<br />Dysfunctional teams: social loafers getting same grades; difficulty in meeting outside class<br />Satisfaction affected by team process and conflict resolution<br />Some Big 5 Personality characteristics (agreeableness, conscientiousness) affect team effectiveness<br />Online teams<br />Same conflict same as traditional teams: disagreements, poor planning, variance in participation levels, and schedule conflicts. <br />Conflicts exacerbated by lack of non-verbal cues and ease of withdrawal from participation <br />
  6. 6. Theory<br />Communication theories<br />Interpersonal relationships<br />Equity theory<br />Developmental stages of teams<br />Systems theory<br />Technology theories<br />Early research on f2f component of teams<br />Building trust<br />TIP theory highlighted asynchronous issues<br />
  7. 7. Research Questions<br />Purpose: <br />Identify differences between teams that have some face-to-face opportunities and online teams that do not.<br />Approach: Qualitative research<br />Online teams<br />Comparison between online and face-to-face<br />
  8. 8. Methods<br />Online courses sample<br />4 online management/marketing courses<br />30 juniors/seniors – 19 women, 11 men<br />> 50% - not familiar with current team members<br />> 90% - more than 3 student team experiences<br />Blended courses sample<br />3 blended management courses<br />14 juniors/seniors – 6 women, 8 men<br />> 50% - familiar with current team members<br />> 90% - more than 3 student team experiences<br />
  9. 9. Methods<br />Instrument - Online survey<br />Debriefing questions based on Kolb’s experiential learning theory<br />Objective review<br />Subjective review<br />Connection to theory<br />Plans for future use<br />Open-ended “Further comments” question<br />Demographic questions<br />Gender, age, program of study, job, and computer experience; questions on the make-up of their team <br />
  10. 10. Methods<br />Analysis<br />Content analysis<br />Multiple researchers evaluated data using variables<br />Positive/negative comments counted/ for each variable<br />Grounded theory<br />Multiple researchers independently made four passes using Straus-Corbin approach<br />open coding<br />sorting and review<br />sense-making searching for central phenomena and strategies <br />identification of themes and selective coding <br />
  11. 11. Methods<br />Variables for content analysis<br />
  12. 12. Results: Content Analysis<br />Blended Team Behaviors<br />Online Team Behaviors<br />
  13. 13. Results: Content Analysis<br />
  14. 14. Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Conscientiousnesshighest presence and similarnumber of positive/negative<br />Blended teams<br />Conscientiousness much less present (5th) and 2 to 1 positive over negative<br />
  15. 15. Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Attitude towards teams: similar number of positive/negative<br />Blended teams<br />Attitude towards teams: almost 2 to 1 positive over negative<br />
  16. 16. Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Both satisfaction and team effectiveness comments high, effectiveness higher than satisfaction<br />Satisfaction 50% more negative responses<br />Blended teams<br />Both satisfaction and team effectiveness comments high, satisfaction higher than effectiveness<br />Satisfaction almost 2 to 1 positive over negative<br />
  17. 17. Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Communication 8th of 15 variables, and positive/negative equal<br />Blended teams<br />Communication much higher (third) number of comments, positive 50% higher than negative<br />
  18. 18. Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Learning – 1/3rd of comments negative<br />Blended teams<br />Learning – all very positivecomments<br />
  19. 19. Results: Content Analysis<br /><ul><li>Online teams
  20. 20. Small number of comments about technology
  21. 21. Mostlynegative
  22. 22. Blended teams
  23. 23. No comments on technology</li></li></ul><li>Grounded Analysis:Key points/issues<br />Online teams<br />Communication (negative)<br />Team process<br />Personality<br />Balance of efforts<br />Pressure<br />Process<br />Timing<br />Leadership<br />Online considerations<br />Attitude<br />Communication<br />Timing of work/meetings<br />Tone – angry, hostile<br />Blended teams<br />Similar to online teams<br />Conscientiousness vs. social loafing<br />Communication<br />Equity theory<br />Psychological contract<br />Accountability<br />Clear expectations = Trust<br />Timeframe<br />Unique to blended teams<br />Motivation<br />Emergent leadership (not always good)<br />Stages of team formation (Tucker)<br />Team cohesion/collaboration/cooperation<br />More learning<br />Success<br />Tone - positive<br />
  24. 24. Conclusions<br />Primary differences between online and blended teams<br />Blended involved face to face meetings<br />Many similarities in team issues raised<br />Communication<br />Social loafing<br />Equity<br />Blended teams were happier<br />More positive attitude towards teams<br />More satisfied<br />More positive about learning<br />Better communication<br />Asynchronous nature of online communication gives false sense of 2-way communication<br />
  25. 25. Questions?<br />Solutions?<br />Synchronous technology? <br />Pros and cons<br />
  26. 26. Results: Content Analysis<br />Online teams<br />Conscientiousnesshighest presence and similarnumber of positive/negative<br />Attitude towards teams: similar number of positive/negative<br />Satisfaction 50% more negative responses<br />Both satisfaction and team effectiveness comments high, effectiveness higher than satisfaction<br />Communication 8th of 15 variables, and positive/negative equal<br />Learning – 1/3rd of comments negative<br />Small number of comments about technology<br />Blended teams<br />Conscientiousness much less present (5th) and 2 to 1 positive over negative<br />Attitude towards teams: almost 2 to 1 positive over negative<br />Satisfaction almost 2 to 1 positive over negative<br />Both satisfaction and team effectiveness comments high, satisfaction higher than effectiveness<br />Communication much higher (third) number of comments, positive 50% higher than negative<br />Learning – all very positivecomments<br />No comments on technology<br />
  27. 27. Proposed model for virtual student team development<br />Internal Locus of Control<br />Good<br />communication<br />Task completion<br />Satisfaction<br />Empowerment<br />Cooperation<br />Leadership <br />Conscientiousness<br />Team Process<br />Team effectiveness<br />Victim<br />mentality<br />Low expectations<br />Individual action<br />Low communication<br />Social loafing<br />Resentment<br />Anger<br />External Locus of Control<br />
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×