Internet Based Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation

Don Scott, Professor of Management and Director of Research, School of Management and Marketing, Southern Cross University, PO Box 157, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Phone: +61 66 20 3 095 Fax: +61 66 21 3428 dscott@scu.edu.au

Catherine Durnell Cramton, Assistant Professor of Management, Graduate Business Institute, George Mason University, USA ccramton@GBI.gmu.edu

Stéphane Gauvin, Professor, Department of Marketing, Université Laval, Canada stephane.gauvin@mrk.ulaval.ca

Beata Lobert, Assistant Professor of Management Information Systems, M.J. Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, USA B.Lobert@tcu.edu

Gerhard Steinke, Associate Professor of Management and Information Systems, School of Business and Economics, Seattle Pacific University, USA gsteinke@paul.spu.edu

Karey Patterson, School of Management and Marketing, Southern Cross University, PO Box 157, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Phone: +61 66 20 3 196 Fax: +61 66 21 2717 kpatters@scu.edu.au

Keywords

Virtual Teams , WWW, distance education, Collaborative Learning

Introduction

This presentation covers the results of an investigation into the use of the internet as a means of communication for teams of students from different universities who were many thousands of miles distant from one another. The aim of the investigation was to identify whether virtual team interactions could produce similar results to face to face team interactions.

Teams of students made up from two to three pairs of students from different universities, were set a business project as an assignment. The students interacted by means of the internet and their project output was evaluated. In addition the students were surveyed in order to identify their opinions as to the success of the exercise and what modifications could be recommended for the future. Responses were collected in the form of rated responses to closed questions as well as open statements in regard to the students' likes and dislikes in relation to the project and their recommendations for future modifications. The closed questions were used to investigate the views of the respondents, by examining respondent segments, respondent dimensions and a regression model. The open responses were categorised and are reproduced in tabular form.

The overall result of the investigation has been to show that virtual teams can produce good output and that in the eyes of many of the respondent students, virtual teams can operate as successfully as face to face teams. Some requirements for good virtual interaction have also been identified. The implication of these findings is important in that it suggests a new and economical way for effective student teams to be created from members with different national and cultural backgrounds who are separated by large distances. The use of such mixes of people in team interactions can provide essential experience of foreign cultures and thought processes.

Description Of the Sample And Details Of Research Results

The details of the participating universities, the number of students and the courses that they were undertaking, can be viewed.

Most contacts were by means of e-mail and that there was a considerable degree of face to face contact between local partners as well as telephone calls between local partners. Chat lines were used to a moderate extent.

The respondents were found to fall into two groups, a group of positively oriented respondents and a group of negatively oriented respondents. The mean values of responses to questions by the different group members are shown and from these it can be seen that the positively oriented group saw their teams as having worked well, with a good outcome. They had a favourable orientation to the workings of virtual teams. The negative group was largely oriented to their local partners and regarded the virtual teams as having worked very poorly.

The most liked aspects were learning internet technology and working with people from other places.

The most disliked aspects were lack of consistency across participating universities and team problems.

The main suggestions for future improvement were better project co-ordination across the universities, more time for the project and better preparation of the participants.

Using principle factor analysis followed by a varimax rotation and with a scree plot being used to determine the numbers of factors, produced three project dimensions. The factor loadings and communality values can be inspected.

The dimensions were named and were regressed against "Really proud of our plan" to identify which of the dimensions were of most importance to the participants perception of their plan. Team operation was shown to have the greatest influence on this perception.

Student Participant And Respondent Numbers By Country University And Study Subject

University	Country	Subject being studied	Number of students participating	Number of students responding to the questionnaire
Central Missouri State University	USA	Management Information Systems	15	1
East Carolina University	USA	Core Management Information Systems	6	4
George Mason University	USA	Leveraging Information Technology	26	12
Seattle Pacific University	USA	Introduction to Information Systems	8	5
Texas Christian University	USA	Core Information Systems	93	58
The Memorial University of Newfoundland	Canada	Core Information Systems	24	8
Université Laval	Canada	Marketing and Management of Technology	19	19
Universidade do Minho	Portugal	Information Systems	10	4
Southern Cross University	Australia	Strategic Management	12	12

---

Nature And Frequency Of Respondents' Contacts During The Project

Contact type	None	1-5	6-20	21+	Don't know
Face to face meetings with local partners	25	18	40	37	3
phone calls to local partner	17	28	45	31	2
phone calls to virtual partner	75	39	6	2	1
faxes sent	83	38	1	0	1
faxes received	94	27	0	0	4
e-mail items sent	0	4	36	81	2
e-mail items received	1	5	41	71	5
hours on chat lines	30	54	34	1	4
minutes on video link	119	1	0	1	2

---

Cluster Mean Values By Project Aspect

Project aspect	Cluster 1 Mean n = 67	Cluster 2 Mean n = 55
Teamwork
All team members did their best	3.10	1.04
Our team worked well	2.93	0.98
Local partners more helpful than virtual ones	2.16	3.36
Local team members did more work than virtual partners	1.56	3.40
Defining member roles was easy	2.79	2.04
Business plan style
Really proud of our plan	3.03	2.18
Could not have done this plan on my own	2.40	1.04
Comparison of Real and Virtual Teams
Virtual teams more efficient than face to face teams	1.31	0.25
Virtual teams more efficient than anticipated	2.55	0.56
Virtual teams more fun than face to face teams	1.88	0.44
Virtual teams more fun than anticipated	2.72	0.56
Success/Failure Factors
Time pressure increases the likelihood of success in a virtual environment	1.84	1.11
Familiarity with Internet technologies a key success factor	3.25	2.51
Cultural similarity a key ingredient for success in virtual environments	1.76	1.98
Participant's personality a key factor for success in virtual environments	2.78	2.62
Overall project evaluation
Went better than expected	2.76	0.87
Would do it again	3.09	1.11
Would prefer local teams to virtual teams for the same or similar task	2.07	3.15
Would prefer to work alone rather than in virtual teams	1.15	2.45

---

Three things that you liked most about the project

Item	Number of mentions
Teamwork via Technology
Using new communications media	19
Process of working in virtual teams	18
Convenience	15
Learn about virtual teamwork	5
Teamwork
Working with people from other places	34
Process of creating and working in a team	15
New knowledge from partners	10
Technology/Internet
Learn internet technology	31
Using the internet	16
Computer/technological literacy	11
Access to information/resources	3
Creating web pages	2
Business/ Electronic Commerce
Create business plan	8
Learn about electronic commerce	6
General
New experience	14
Challenge and accomplishment	8
Good project	6

---

Three things that you liked least about the project

Item	Number of mentions
Project Management
Lack of consistency across schools	37
No time for anything else	22
Time too short	21
No value from project	8
Grading	5
Project structural aspects	5
Teamwork vis Technology
Difficulties with team coordination and accountability	22
Communication difficulties	20
No face to face contact	13
Different time zone partners	5
Teamwork
Team problems	33
Language/background difficulties	7
Team communication	1
Technology/Internet
Equipment problems	24
Chat line problems	14
Technical training/ support needed	9
Equipment incompatibilities	3
General
Confusion/stress	4
Slow start	1
Desired result not achieved	1

---

Three things you think would improve virtual learning

Item	Number of mentions
Project Management
Better project co-ordination	39
More time	29
Better preparation of participants	28
Miscellaneous	17
Clearer definition of expectations	14
Don't do a project	9
More flexible structure	5
Less time intensive project	5
Smaller teams	4
Technology
Technical tutorials/support	22
Telephone of video contact	7
Better access to technology	6
Better chat lines	3
Teamwork
Better team communication	21

Project aspect	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Communality
Virtual teams more fun than face to face teams	0.81	0.25	0.05	0.79
Would do it again	0.74	0.37	0.08	0.79
Virtual teams more fun than anticipated	0.70	0.47	0.09	0.45
Virtual teams more efficient than face to face teams	0.67	0.34	-0.08	0.63
Virtual teams more efficient than anticipated	0.64	0.60	0.01	0.44
Time pressure increases the likelihood of success in a virtual environment	0.46	0.13	0.27	0.57
Would prefer to work alone rather than in virtual teams	-0.63	-0.14	-0.24	0.76
Would prefer local teams to virtual teams for the same or similar task	-0.77	-0.06	0.22	0.73
All team members did their best	0.21	0.85	0.17	0.72
Our team worked well	0.35	0.80	0.15	0.30
Went better than expected	0.52	0.69	0.10	0.41
Defining member roles was easy	-0.09	0.65	-0.11	0.56
Local partners more helpful than virtual ones	-0.34	-0.57	0.12	0.48
Local team members did more work than virtual partners	-0.37	-0.70	-0.09	0.76
Cultural similarity a key ingredient for success in virtual environments	-0.15	-0.08	0.73	0.69
Paticipant's personality a key factor for success in virtual environments	0.13	-0.07	0.68	0.64
Familiarity with Internet technologies a key success factor	0.12	0.26	0.57	0.47

Factor Names

FACTOR 1 : Enjoyable experience


FACTOR 2: Team operation


FACTOR 3: Team formation needs

Regression Analysis

Really proud of our plan =	0.019 (Enjoyable experience)	+ 0.52 (Team operation)	+ 0.01 (Team formation needs)	+2.66
	t=2.2*	t=6.03**	t=0.12	t=31.03**

R² = 0.25

F(3,116) = 13.7**

* significant at the 95% level

** significant at the 99% level

Conclusion

1 It is possible to achieve a meaningful collaborative learning experience for some students using largely e-mail and to a lesser extent chat-line linkages even at distances of several thousands of miles.

2 Projects of this nature should take care to ensure:

• consistency of evaluation criteria across universities
• co-ordination of times for the project
• prior exercises in getting to know the participants
• provision of team interaction/facilitation tools
• explanation of the higher levels of communication required

Efforts in this area should reduce levels of dissatisfaction, although, as with face-to-face team exercises, not all participants can be expected to participate to the same extent.

3 Distance-based collaborative learning projects can acquaint students with different cultural orientations and ways of thinking and cultural differences do not constitute a barrier to a distance based collaborative learning experience.

Copyright

Don Scott, Catherine Durnell, Stéphane Gauvin, Beata Lobert, Gerhard Steinke, Karey Patterson © 1997 The authors assign to Southern Cross University and other educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to Southern Cross University to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web and on CDROM and for the document to be published on mirrors on the World Wide Web. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.