0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

forums. During the 16 week semester, a total of 18 discussion forums were completed in each online group. For each forum, the instructor assigned a reading chapter along with comprehension questions and discussion topics to help the students to grasp the contents. Students divided the reading questions among themselves in their groups and posted the answers to each question for the first round of postings. They were also required to make comments on at least one peer’s answers in the second round of postings to carry on the discussions.

To ensure participation, strict deadlines for each round of postings were enforced and each student’s answers to the questions and comment messages were assessed by the instructor who assigned up to 3% of the course grade for participation of each discussion forum. After each forumwascompleted,themoderatorofeachgroup (in each group, students rotated as moderators) was required to summarize the discussions and post the summary messages in a class forum that was accessible to all groups. These general class forums were intended to provide the students an opportunity to learn what was going on in other group forums that they did not have access to. This way, they did not need to read the numerous messages of 3-4 other groups but could still learn the gist of other group discussions. Although the summary messages were required, they were not graded. However, the summary of group discussions in a whole class discussion forum was eliminated in the Fall semester classes because it was not popular based on the input from the Spring semester class post course survey.

For the entire semester, the mean postings of each student in group forums ranged from 62-77 messages. On average, each student posted 3.5- 4.3 in each of the 18 discussion forums. Although there was some variation in number of messages posted across groups and classes, most students did more than the minimum requirement of posting two rounds of messages in each discussion forum. Messages posted in the course related

forums outside the group discussion forums were not included in the calculation because they were either inquiries or socialization in nature. Moderators’ postings of summary messages in the class discussions forum were not included either because these postings were not enforced in the two Fall classes.

The other major collaborative task was a product oriented group project that constituted 12% of the course grade for which all the students in the same group received a common grade based on the level of collaboration and the quality of the final written report. There was no individual assessment component for the group project. The interdependent grading (a common grade for all members of a group only) was aimed at promoting more collaboration among the peers to produce a true collaborative product with individual contributions. The group project was closely related to one of the course themes on types of bilingual education programs. Each student was required to visit a local school to interview a bilingual teachertogainfirsthandinformationaboutbilingual education programs implemented in Central California. Students then shared and synthesized the interview data to produce a group report. They were not required to meet face-to-face for the group project but exchanged information in an online forum that was mostly procedural to plan, negotiate, to reach agreement and to produce the final product. The process of planning and producing the project required negotiation, cooperation, and collaboration among peers to actually arrive at consensus to produce a report. Though not graded, the progress of each group in the online forums was closely monitored by the instructor. The deadline for submitting the group project was strictly imposed to ensure the completion of the work.

Othercourseactivitiesincludedtwoindividual written assignments (8%) and three online exams (35%) that assessed the learning outcomes of the course readings and group discussions. Table 1 summarizes the course activities and grading.

data collection: Post course survey data

At the end of the semester, an online survey was administered in each class to collect information about students’ learning experience and their attitudes toward the course, in particular, their experience with online collaboration in both the weekly conference discussions and the group project.Thesurveyquestionnaire,whichconsisted of 17 multiple choice questions and 4 open-ended questions (see Appendix) was uploaded to the survey area of the course on Blackboard. Students were able to access and complete the survey questionnaire anonymously during the week after the final exam. Blackboard automatically calculated the results of the multiple choice questions in percentage. The transcripts of the survey responses for all three classes were printed out for analysis. 16 of the 22 Spring semester students and 37 of the 38 Fall semester students completed the survey questionnaire. Therefore, the analysis of the survey data was based on the 53 completed questionnaires.

Results

students’ attitudes towards online discussions and collaborative learning

Table 2 presents student responses to the question “what are your thoughts about the structure of the course?” Overall, 92.5 % of the students preferred the collaborative learning in the form of small group discussions to the weekly online quizzes (7.5%) if given the choices. Additionally, the first open-ended question asked the students to describe their experience with the forum discussions. Among the 47 students who answered this question, only 1 student expressed negative experience with the discussion forums. Three students commented that their experience was mixed. The majority, 43 students (91.5 %), expressedtheirexperiencewiththisformoflearning ranged from positive to extremely positive.

What factors encouraged students to participate in this form of active and interactive learning throughout the semester? Did the students really

think they learned from building on each other’s insights? What were the effects of such learning as reflected by students’ responses in the survey data? The survey questionnaire addressed these issues in a number of questions. Table 3 summarizes students’ responses to the effectiveness of group discussions.

Chi Square analyses of students’ responses to the questions in Table 3 along the scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree were all significant beyond 0.0001 level. (Unless otherwise stated, Chi Square analyses reported in this study were significantbeyondthelevelof0.0001.)About90% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that answeringquestionsandparticipatingindiscussions helped them understand the readings better and that online discussion was helpful because they collaborated more and learned more from each other.Additionally,72%ofthestudentsresponded that they learned more from online discussions than they would have learned from the lectures. Furthermore, 89% of the students responded, saying group cohesion and mutual trust was an important factor in their group.

factors that affect level of Participation and sustained interaction

Assessment

Table 4 summarizes students’ responses to the level of participation in their group discussions if the postings were not required and graded. Overall,51%ofthestudentsrespondedtheywould post some but not as many messages, 21% said they would post very few, and 8% responded they would not post any messages at all! Only 21% responded they would post the same number of messages. One might argue that the survey data may not reflect the real level of participation in discussions if the postings were not required or assessed because all the postings in this course were actually required and assessed. Therefore, afirmclaimoftheeffectofassessmentonforum contributions must be tested with a treatment groupwhosepostingsinforumswereassessedand compared with a control group whose postings in forums were optional and unassessed. Neverthe-

less, students’ responses to this survey question stillreflectthe“ifnot”situationbecausetheyhad just completed the weekly postings for the entire semester and such learning experience would certainly affect their responses. Therefore, the “if notassessed”situationwascontrastedagainstthe real situation of “assessed” postings.

Therewasfurtherevidencethattasksthatwere not directly linked to assessment did not attract as much attention and were difficult to sustain. For example, in the first offering of the course in the

Spring semester, the moderators posted summary messages of each weekly group forum in a class forum by thedeadline as required. However,these messages seldom attracted voluntary comments. Table 5 summarizes the Spring semesterstudents’ responses to a survey question on the whole class forums. The results showed that while 38% of the students acknowledged that it was an important way to learn the ideas of the other groups, which may indicate these students had read summary messages from other groups, 44% of the students reported they seldom read these messages. 19% of the students responded that the class forum should be eliminated.

As the whole class forum was not popular with the majority of the students in the first offering of the course, this task was eliminated in the Fall semester classes. To investigate whether students missed the level of input from other groups, the post course survey asked Fall semester students questions about their thoughts on the input from other groups. Table 6 summarizes the responses from the two Fall semester classes.

Seventy-eight percent of the students felt that participating in their own group discussion was sufficienttolearnthecoursecontentsanditwould have taken too much time to read and respond to thesummarymessagesfromothergroups.14%respondedthateverygroupshouldhavesummarized their forum discussions each week and posted it to a general forum so that interested students could comment on the discussions in other groups. Very few students, 8% in all, wanted other group memberstoreadtheirpostingsormissedthediscussions in other groups. Therefore, with or without the summary postings in the whole class forums, the survey data suggest that the majority of students showed the same lack of interest in participating whole class discussions that were not graded.

Deadlines

Table 7 presents students’ responses to the importance of deadlines in the weekly postings of group forums.

Overall,93%ofthestudentsagreedorstrongly agreed that the imposed deadlines for postings had an important impact on their participation in collaborative learning and in getting the tasks done in a timely fashion.

Group Formation

Table 8 summarizes students’ responses to the question on group formation.

62% of the students responded that they preferredtoworkwiththesamepeoplefortheirgroup discussions and 30% expressed that they did not have any preferences. Only 8% responded that they wanted to work with different people because they felt that they would also learn from other students they never interacted with in this course.

Chi Square analysis yielded highly significant differences between the responses.

Itappearsthatthegroupasacommunityforonline learning established deep roots in this course. Recall that the class level discussion forums in the form of summaries from each group forum was eliminated.Exceptforsomecourserelatedgeneral forumsinwhichquestionsregardingcourseactivities were exchanged, students generally did not have access to the majority of the fellow students in their class. It would not have been surprising if students had expressed their desires to learn the discussions in other groups through some form of exchangesonaclasslevel,or,throughreshuffling groups. Yet, the survey responses suggest that at least two thirds of the students did not express the need to work outside their fixed groups.

It is important to note that the survey data reflectedthestudentviewstowardstheirworking groups that were fixed for the entire semester. If they actually had the chance to work in different groups in this online course, they might have

different views. To explore the advantages and disadvantages of fixed or dynamic small groups in a Web-based course that uses weekly forum discussions, both group types need to be included in the data in future studies.

Process vs. Product oriented collaboration

Table 9 presents students’ responses to a question that allowed for multiple choices about the group project.

Two of the choices provided in the answers were aimed at assessing whether the assignment itself was important for the course in the students’ eyes because the importance of the group project may affect their overall performance. As seen in Table 9, 70% of the students from all three classes responded positively about the importance of this group project and agreed they learned a lot through doing it. However, 30% of the students felt that it could be an individual project focus-

ing on one school rather than a group project that involved more collaboration. The Fall semester postcourse survey asked an additional question about the group project and the responses are summarized in Table 10.

While 24% of the students preferred to work with peers because they had no problems to collaborate, exactly another 24% of them did not like to depend on other peoples’ schedules because some just did not get the work done on time. Similarly, although 22% of the students felt it worthwhile to collaborate for the group project despitethefactthatitwasdifficult,32%preferred individual work leading to a project of their own even though they would not accomplish as much.

Chi Square analysis failed to yield significant differences between student responses to this question. Compared to 92.5% positive responses toward collaboration in forum discussions, students’ attitudes toward online collaboration in producing the group project were mixed.

Such differences were also reflected in some student comments on the group project in the open-end questions. As the open-ended questions did not address the group project directly, only 11 students expressed their views about the group project in their responses to the question about their likes and dislikes about the course (Questions 18b), and the question about any changes they wanted to recommend to improve the course (question 18d). Of these 11 students, one commented that she liked the group project the most about this course. However, 10 expressed their dislikes or frustrations about the group project. One student wrote “I think it’s too inconvenient to try and get a group project together online. I also don’t like having someone’s performance affect my grade. I would rather do the project on my own.” It appears that the end product type of collaborative tasks demands more consensusbuildingcollaboration.Whenstudentsweretimed for such intensive interaction and collaboration, they became less enthusiastic about it.

discussion

A number of issues can be identified in answering the four research questions raised earlier. The following two sections discuss these questions along with the research findings.

factors that Promote sustained online small group discussions

Survey data suggest that a number of factors contributed to the sustained small group discussions in this course. Among others, the structure of discussions with carefully prepared discussion questions,smallgroupswithfixedgroupmembers for interactive learning activities, the direct link between participation and assessment, and the strictly imposed deadlines for each forum were the main factors that contributed to the sustained the interactive learning in this Web course.

Previousstudiessuggestthattopicsthatarenot relevant to the course contents or not related to students’ life experience do not attract participation and are not sustainable in online discussions (Williams & Pury, 2002). One of the factors that might have contributed to the sustained online small group discussions in this study was that studentsnotonlyalwayshad“somethingtosay”in eachforumbutknewexactlywhatspecificquestions they were expected to answer in advance.

Thesewrittenexercisesrequiredinthefirstround of postings kept each individual student accountable for knowing the contents through reading. Therefore, students’ interaction with the course readings, the first level of interaction with the material, was enhanced by producing written answers to be commented by peers in the group forums. Predetermined specific comprehension questions and thought provoking topic questions for each reading assignment helped students to focus on the learning contents and provided continuous discussion topics for the weekly group forums. Such proactive learning not only engaged students in a higher level of thinking (Gao &

Lehman, 2003; Wu, 2004) than the reactive type of learning but also kept the students accountable for participating in the weekly forums. The enthusiasm in group discussions never waned forum after forum because each forum focused on a new reading chapter.

Furthermore, the comment messages required students to exchange information by building on each other’s ideas to negotiate for meaning and to collaboratively construction knowledge. Such interaction between peers and between students and instructors provided another level of interaction forlearning.Students’positiveexperiencewiththe semesterlongforumdiscussionswasrelatedtothe benefits of proactive learning and learning from each other for knowledge construction. While the advantages of online interactive learning have long been proved in previous studies (Kern, 1995; Lavooy & Newlin, 2003; Mouza, Kaplan & Espinet; 2000; Summer & Hostetler, 2002; Wang & Teles, 1998; Wu, 2003), this study provided new data for the use of small group discussion as the core interactive learning tasks through the application of carefully prepared discussion questions that elicits proactive learning and through peer interaction and collaboration. When online collaborative learning tasks become main course pedagogy, such interactive learning is likely to be more sustainable and effective.

Previous studies have also indicated that collaboration as a process of participating to the knowledge communities is not an equal process to all the members of the community (Leinonen, Järvelä & Lipponen, 2003) and the size of online learning community affects the level of comforts which influences the level of participation (Williams&Pury,2002).Thecurrentfiningssuggest thatagroupof4-6memberscanbeanefficientand active learning community in which the members tend to generate sufficient responses from each other. On the other hand, the number of messages produced by each member was manageable and easy to keep track of. However, caution must be taken on this finding as the current study did not

experience with other group sizes. Future studies need to test different group sizes with different learning tasks.

The survey data also indicated that students believed that group cohesion and mutual trust was the main factor of their groups. Furthermore, the majority of students said they preferred working with the same members of the group for the entire semesterratherthanrotatingthepeers.Obviously, it takes time to establish such mutual trust, even in a small group of 4-6 members. Therefore, it is very likely that the group cohesion and mutual trust comes from the semester long interaction, cooperation, and collaboration online. A small number of students expressed the desire to work with different peers and some did not show preference in working with the same peers or not.

Future studies need to investigate the benefits and disadvantages of dynamic group formations in which students are given the chance to work with different online peers during the semester.

Survey data also indicated that assessment played a crucial role in motivating the students to participate in the semester-long group discussions week after week. Although over 90% of the studentsclaimedthattheylearnedmorefromreading and commenting on peers’ messages, many admitted they would not have posted as many messagesifthepostingshadnotbeenrequiredand assessed. The data support the previous research findingsthattheassessmentofcollaborativelearning tasks plays a crucial role in ensuring student participation. Macdonald (2003) reported that students actively contributed to the discussions when the tasks were assessed but participation of discussions waned when the postings became optional. Grade for discussion was also positively related to students’ perceived learning (Jiang & Ting 2000). Apparently, any optional interactive learning tasks would not have sustained for the entire semester.

Current data also suggest that required postings that were not directly linked to assessment did not attract equal amount of attention as the

graded postings. This was clearly demonstrated in the lack of interest in participating the forum discussions at the whole class level in the Spring class. Williams and Pury (2002, p. 1) reported that “contrary to much literature on electronic collaboration suggesting students enjoy online collaboration, our students did not enjoy online discussion regardless of whether the discussion was optional or mandatory.” It was not clear whether their “mandatory” participation of discussions was enforced by direct assessment of the actual postings in the forum discussions. This study provided further evidence that direct assessmentofstudentinteractivelearninginCMC promotes sustained participation and interaction and also affects the level of participation and interaction.

Anotherimportantfactorthatappearedtohave contributed to the completion of each discussion forum on time for the entire semester was the strictly imposed deadlines for each round of posting in each discussion forum. Student responses to survey questions suggest that required postings alonewerenotsufficientforguaranteedparticipation and interaction within a time frame. Strict deadlines seemed to be the best solution to complete the weekly forums on schedule. Therefore, the importance of imposing deadlines cannot be overemphasized for even directly assessed interactive learning activities.

Process and Product oriented interactive learning

Very few studies have dealt with the differences between process and product oriented interactive learning tasks and how these differences influence peer interaction and collaboration (Kear, 2004; Kear & Heap, 1999; Macdonald, 2003). This Web-based course applied both process and product orientated interactive learning tasks that required different types and levels of interaction and collaboration. As discussed earlier, in the weekly group forums, the debate and exchange of

ideas focused on the process of learning that did not lead to a final product. In contrast, the group project was a product driven collaborative task in that the interaction and collaboration among the peers through sharing and exchange of ideas and negotiation must help to reach certain consensus to produce a group report. Survey data suggest thatstudentsweremoreenthusiasticaboutprocess oriented group discussions than the group project even though 70% of the students agreed that the group project was a good assignment and they learned a lot through doing it.

Among others, the main reasons for students’ frustration about the group project were the difficulties in reaching agreement according to a time frame, especially in the online environment.

The differences in working pace and conflicts of schedules, and, perhaps more importantly, differences in level of devotion to the collaborative taskinonlineenvironmentmadeitmoredifficult for the peers to reach consensus in the process of doing the group project. The early birds who preferred to start and complete their parts of the work in a timely fashion conflicted with those who procrastinated in getting the work done. As peers in the same group would receive a common grade only for their project, there was pressure for them to compromise to reach agreements in completing the project.

Although the common grade can be used as a useful instructional strategy to implement end product driven collaborative tasks to encourage collaboration, the frustration and stress caused by the schedule conflicts and different levels of devotion toward such collaboration calls for more careful instructional design of such tasks. Perhaps some form of individual grading in addition to the interdependent grading are necessary to measure each individual student’s efforts and contribution. In fact, Kear and Heap (1999) reported that students expressed a preference for a higher individual grade component when both common and individual grades were assigned for their group project. It is important to balance

the level of collaboration among the students and the individual flexibility of online learning.

Future studies need to address the pedagogical design of end product driven collaborative tasks in Web-based courses.

conclusions and RecoMMendations

Thisstudyidentifiedsomeimportantfactorsthat promote sustained online small groupdiscussions as main interactive learning tasks in a Web-based course. Among other things, the structure of the online discussion, group size and group cohesion, strictly enforced deadlines, direct link of the interactive learning tasks to the assessment, and strictly imposed deadlines are some of the important factors that influence participation and motivate sustained online interaction and collaboration. The differences in process and productdriveninteractivelearningtasksalsohave a different impact onstudent online collaboration. In general, students were more enthusiastic about process oriented than product driven collaborative tasks.

Finally, as the current data are based on one Web-based course that was mainly a reading course,thefindingsmaynotbegeneralizedintoa broadscope.Becauseofthislimitation,thecurrent findings may not be directly applicable to other courses that have a different online pedagogical approach. Yet, a few recommendations may be made for designing and implementing similar interactivelearningactivitiestopromotesustained and effective online collaboration.

•Although a very good tool for promoting interactive learning and collaboration, online discussion is not always sustainable if not well planned and structured. It is recommended that instructors carefully design each forum discussion with direct involvement of course contents with predetermined

specific questions to engage students in a high level of thinking through providing written answers to the topics for which peer critiques are required.

•To continue to motivate the students, link the assessment with all interactive learning tasks utilizing specific grading scales.

•Impose strict deadlines for each round of postings in each discussion forum.

•Form small groups of 4-6 as learning communities for discussions so the peers will havesufficientinputfromeachotheryetstill find it easy to keep track of all the postings in each new thread.

•Use process oriented interactive learning tasks to facilitate continuous online interaction and collaboration and yet still give each student sufficient amount of freedom in completing the assessed learning tasks.

•When design product oriented interactive learning tasks, much care needs to be taken in order to prepare the students to reach consensus. Give sufficient time for completing such learning assignment. Incorporate both common and individual grades in grading a group project.

acknowledgMent

The author thanks Sarah Maddison, Terese Thonus, and Ondine Gage-Serio for their insightful comments on earlier versions of the paper. The author also appreciates many helpful comments from the Associate Editor. Thanks are also due to Dawn Truelsen for her assistance in online course design using Blackboard.

RefeRences

Duin, H., & Hansen, C. (1994). Reading and writing on computer networks as social construction and social interaction. In C. Selfe & S. Hilligoss