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