Learning in Virtual Groups: Identifying Key Aspects of a Course ...

Learning in Virtual Groups: Identifying Key Aspects of a Course Management System Affecting Teamwork in an IT Training Course

L. Roger Yin Nancy Lien

Jon M. Werner

In this study, we investigated the evolving nature of e-‐learning in a group setting via Blackboard, a widely adopted educational groupware, or course management system (CMS). End users were questioned concerning how they perceived key aspects of using Blackboard affected the collaboration of their group work in a graduate class. Similar to the way that business groupware blossomed in client-‐server networked environments in the 1990s, CMSs have become increasingly popular in online postsecondary education and corporate training settings in the Internet-‐enhanced environment of the past decade (Noe, 2008). Like business groupware, CMSs have advantages that extend beyond the traditional classroom. Subjects were 120 graduate students utilizing Blackboard in an IT training course at a Midwestern university. We collected their perceptions concerning the use of this technological tool and its potential effect on their group work in that course. Using a Q-‐Sort methodology, six important aspects of course management systems were identified by students: (a) information storage, (b) information sharing, (c) interaction, (d) productivity, (e) security, and (f) learning/training outcomes. Technology-‐enhanced, group-‐based communication and learning will continue to increase in both business training and professional education. To be successful, however, resource allocation must be carefully planned and implemented in online education and training with a progressive vision to develop human potential. business groupware is IBM/Lotus Notes. Introduction1 More recently, course management systems (CMSs) as educational groupware have In the age of information explosion, which began in the early 1990s, the quest for a L. Roger Yin is Professor, Department of networked environment where stakeholders Information Technology and Business are engaged to share, learn, and collaborate Education, College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-‐Whitewater, as dynamic teams has gained popularity and Whitewater, Wisconsin. become a socioeconomic, cross-‐cultural phenomenon (Castells, 2001; Lu & Yeh, 2008; Nancy Lien is Professor, Graduate Institute of Wresch, Arbaugh, & Rebstock, 2005). The Multicultural Education, National Hualien most significant network applications were University of Education, Hualien, Taiwan. spearheaded by business groupware in client-‐ server systems. A prominent example of Jon M. Werner is Professor, Department of 1

This paper was accepted for publication in October 2010.

Management, College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-‐ Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin.

Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2

30

Learning in Virtual Groups

become common in an Internet-‐based environment (West, Waddoups, & Graham, 2007; Yee Hsieh, 2004). In this article, we first discuss the roles, functions, purposes, and evolving nature of groupware in general. We later investigate the perceived key aspects of Blackboard, an educational groupware or CMS, and how Blackboard (Blackboard, 2009) is believed to affect group work in an MBA-‐level IT training course. We argue that a technology like Blackboard can be an effective tool to facilitate learning, but only if it is used and implemented properly (Brown, 2004). The research question we intend to address is: What do end-‐users of Blackboard think of this tool in the context of a classroom-‐based IT training course, and what particular aspects of using Blackboard most significantly affect teamwork and group dynamics? Also of importance is a basic understanding of what groupware can do and how it can be used in an educational setting. McAteer (1994) provides an example: Lotus Notes acts as a common channel for distributing information, tracking projects, and facilitating group discussions. It allows widely dispersed people to share information as if they all had access to a common desktop equipped with tools for sharing, routing, and updating files; sending messages; scheduling meetings; and sorting information (p. 65). Other forms of groupware allow users to share specific types of information. Hunt and Burford (1994) mention Adobe System’s Acrobat and its feature that allows users to share graphic images. They also point out that other groupware products focus on workflow management. These packages allow people to map the steps in a process or to route forms or documents between one another (Hunt & Burford, 1994, p. 32).

31

Benefits Many potential benefits are associated with groupware, and we list many of them as cited by various authors. This list is not comprehensive; rather, it is a representative listing of benefits found in the readings used for the analysis of this topic. According to Munter (2001), groupware: • Allows geographically dispersed groups a choice of meeting arrangements. • Expedites meeting follow-‐up activities, because decisions and action items may be recorded. According to Hunt and Burford (1994): • Groups generally have more information than one individual. • Groups are better than one individual at detecting errors in proposed ideas. • Members of a group may encourage and stimulate each other to be productive and creative. • Members may learn from and imitate the most skilled members of the group. • Groupware has the potential to eliminate negatives often associated with grouping, such as: feeling pressure to conform and socialize, forgetting responses of others, lacking focus on issues involved, waiting longer for feedback, and giving loafers a free ride (e.g., as recently discussed by Schoberth, Heinzl, & Preece, 2006). • Groupware provides an archival system for lesson plans, etc. • Benefits from peer feedback are more likely to emerge when group participants are provided an atmosphere in which they feel comfortable; electronic responses allow for decisions that are less emotionally charged. • Participants express their secret feelings without fear of

32

Yin, Lien, & Werner

embarrassment, thus providing a more even rate of participation among members. • A group support system (GSS) is fast, and immediate feedback is available. • Groupware encourages the small group process; participants can usually recognize the improved quality of decision making in small group arrangements versus working individually. According to Perreault and Moses (1992), groupware leads to: • increased employee cohesiveness, • higher morale, • improved organizational image, and • reduced travel and labor costs.

varied. These differences may be attributed to lower comfort levels and unfamiliarity with groupware technology. As acknowledged by the authors, “Additional training would have allowed students using groupware to learn such techniques” (Perreault & Moses, 1992, p. 163). Additional training-‐related issues are present in this example due to the fact that “other students noted that they had difficulty sending, receiving, and logging into the groupware system. They felt they could have accomplished their assigned tasks faster if they had been able to meet face-‐to-‐face” (Perreault & Moses, 1992, p. 163). Guptill (1992) found that there is a high learning curve, and it takes time to “get up to speed on even rudimentary tasks” (p. 50). The end result was found and noted in students’ preference for face-‐to-‐face meetings, as cited by Perreault & Moses (1992, p. 163). Additionally, Koenig (2001) observed that Knowledge Management (KM), another term for groupware, is: more about people and organizational culture than technology…That observation is translated into a variety of prescriptive forms—don’t leave KM to the IT folks, don’t assume that if you build it they will come, recognize the importance of social capital, and the list goes on. What has not been adequately recognized, however, is the importance of user education and training…technology is not holding organizations back, but a lack of strategy and a failure to build KM in the organization’s day-‐to-‐day operations and its culture in order to encourage end-‐user buy-‐in (p. 24). Koenig’s (2001) research backs up these assertions. The accounting and professional services firm KPMG analyzed more than 400 firms in its biannual study of the status of KM, “KM 2000.” The researchers found that of the 288 firms that had KM systems in place or were setting them up, benefits failed to meet expectations in 137 cases (48%). Of those

Issues and Challenges The many advantages associated with groupware do not come without potential disadvantages. Perreault and Moses (1992) compared the results of a collaborative writing project completed by students utilizing groupware technology to the results of other students who utilized face-‐to-‐face meetings. These authors presented two main findings. First, the overall quality and time required to complete the reports did not differ between those meeting face to face and those using groupware. Second, on review of student perceptions regarding ease, speed, and convenience, students favored meeting face to face (Perreault & Moses, 1992, p. 162). Such perceptions stem from a number of barriers in the way of successful implementation and acceptance of groupware. They include inadequate training, lack of ready access, user resistance, absence of human contact, insufficient infrastructures, and poor learning assuredness. We discuss each respectively. 1) Inadequate training. Perreault and Moses (1992) found that even though there were no differences in overall quality of the reports, the general appearance and format


288 firms, 127 were still in the process of setting up a KM system. That means that of the 161 firms with KM systems in place, 137 (85%) reported that benefits failed to meet expectations (Koenig, 2001, p. 24). When participants were asked why they thought the benefits failed to meet expectations, inadequate training and user education was cited by 53% of the respondents (Koenig, 2001). This is obviously an area where training and development professionals need to work in concert with information technology professionals to craft effective training solutions (Noe, 2008). 2) Lack of ready access. Students involved in the Koenig (2001) study used a general computer lab open to the campus to complete their paper. Many students noted conflicts between lab hours and their personal schedules. As a result, computer availability was a factor working against the use of groupware. Perrault and Moses (1992) acknowledge this concern: “Frustrations of this type could have been avoided if students had ready access to computer labs or if the class had met in a computer lab” (p. 163). Another issue related to access not yet found in the research is access to home computers. Not all students live in homes with personal computers, and even if they do, scheduling conflicts with other family members may severely limit their ability to use it. Restricted access can be a significant impediment to online learning (James, 1997). 3) User resistance. People are creatures of habit and typically do not enjoy change (Bernerth, 2004). Consequently, working with the unknown often rouses discomfort. Guptill reinforces this relationship with regard to groupware: “’The most formidable task for implementing groupware is the uncertainty potential users feel about the systems’” (cited in Perreault & Moses, 1992, p. 155). Saka and Shiigi (1996) note the same phenomenon: “Resistance should always be expected when people are forced into switching products, especially when it means a change of vendors” (p. 105). They also reference Orlikowski (1992), who says,

33

“’Individuals facing new technology have difficulty changing their framework for understanding it and thus have difficulty interacting effectively with new applications. In most instances, individuals were not able to see the potential benefits of work-‐group computing’” (cited in Saka & Shiigi, 1996, p. 105). Potential users need to be informed of what groupware is and what it can do for them. Christine Bullen, Assistant Director of the Center for Information Systems Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, asserts, “’Education is key…Once users become educated about groupware, you’ll see a real change in the way people work’” (Perreault & Moses, 1992, p. 155). 4) Absence of human contact. Although not referenced by the above research, human contact is obviously vitally important. The use of groupware lacks the richness of nonverbal body cues, voice, proximity, and touch, all of which are important in a learning environment. Thus, implementing groupware is not as effective when attempting to establish rapport and relationships within a group (Farrell, 2000). 5) Insufficient infrastructures. In many cases, present school and university infrastructures are incapable of handling the latest technology. Since schools are still addressing these concerns, the time frame for overcoming the problem is unclear. Foshay and Bergeron (2000) note, “The network infrastructures we have in the real world of schools and training today are only beginning to be able to support the massive-‐bandwidth, high reliability applications visionaries describe in their blue sky visions of a cyber-‐ future” (p.16). 6) Learning assurances. Foshay and Bergeron (2000) say it best: “Putting content on a Web page is no guarantee of learning. The Web may be a great way to distribute information, but can you really teach with it? There is a big difference between information and instruction, and this basic principle is as true on the Web as anywhere” (p. 16). In other words, it is not simply what you have, but how you use it.

34

In summary, the presence of a high learning curve, user resistance, and training needs coupled with the absence of ready access, human contact, learning guarantees, and proper network infrastructure support represent current barriers facing the successful implementation of groupware. We now shift our attention to the recent use of course management systems in electronic learning efforts.

From Business Groupware to Educational Groupware

The primary factors that affect the change from traditional modes of instruction to that of technology-‐based instruction involving systems such as groupware revolve around the environment or organizational culture in which the transition takes place; administrators and faculty members must come together to create it (Tham & Werner, 2004). They must also address and attempt to solve issues related to training, access, learning, infrastructure, user resistance, and human contact to ensure a successful transition. Technology has become an increasingly important element of business and educational success. For example, Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business offers an online MBA program in which students attend CD-‐ROM video lectures. Supplemental video and audio programs are available to download, and lecture discussions are facilitated via bulletin boards, e-‐mail, and live chat rooms. Additionally, professors send out interactive aids to those students in need of extra assistance (Bartlett, 1997). Yet, one cannot ignore that a program such as this still lacks significant face-‐to-‐face correspondence. Duke’s program recognizes this, however, and they integrate student travel to the campus for three-‐week and two-‐ week visits at the beginning and end of the program. Students also go on mandatory trips to Eastern Europe, China, and South America for onsite classes and meetings with local business owners. The philosophy is that

Yin, Lien, & Werner

students will build close personal ties that help sustain them. “We’re all very, very close friends,” says Duke student, Janet Morgan (Bartlett, 1997, p. 77). It is because of statements like this that in-‐person interaction will continue to play a significant role in the educational transformation are currently experiencing. Such interaction will also represent a key component in the successful transformation to technology-‐supported instruction. We argue that this is true, even if the perceived value of the human element has often been overlooked, forgotten, or severely underestimated. After all, the most essential part of a given virtual group is still its human members. With the above research findings as our background, we asked students in an IT Business Technologies class for their perceptions concerning how Blackboard, as an example of an educational groupware, affected their group work in this course.

An Exploratory Investigation of the Blackboard Educational Groupware Study Design and Methodology Blackboard is a well-‐known example of a course management system. Adopted by many universities and educational institutions, a growing number of post-‐ secondary educators use Blackboard as a supplement or “course portal” to their classes (Higher Education, 2009; Jones & Jones, 2008). Participants in this study consisted of 120 Masters of Business Administration and Masters of Business Education students enrolled in graduate courses at a Midwestern university. All were enrolled in a traditional MBA Business Technologies course taught by the first author. They had become familiar with Blackboard from experience with it in previous hybrid courses (i.e., classroom meetings and Web-‐enhanced activities) for at least one semester. We used a three-‐step process to generate the data and derive meaningful findings. First, toward the end of the semester, we asked each participant to list five aspects of


35

Blackboard that significantly affected the teamwork involved in the Business Technologies training course they were taking. We summarized 11 of the entries students came up with based on the keywords or key concepts they mentioned. Those 11 emerging entries are listed in Table 1. Though the list signifies Blackboard’s fundamental strengths in enabling individual students’ virtual learning, we were more interested in knowing what key aspects of using Blackboard will affect group work. In the second step, we used a Q-‐sort methodology to have the students rank those 11 emerging aspects that had the greatest effect on their ability to work as a team. We chose the Q methodology because it has been used to build consensus with both qualitative and quantitative data by requiring participants to perform ranking tasks (Brown, 1996). In addition, a previous study employed Q methodology to identify the key issues in information systems management Table 1. Emerging Aspects of the Use of Blackboard with Significant Effects on a Training Course Perceived Key Aspects of the Effect of Using Blackboard

Counts Percentage

Learning outcomes 107 Interaction/collaboration 103 Information/knowledge/content 94 storage Information sharing 90 Virtual classroom 86 Productive/flexible process 85 Secured communication 82 Self-‐paced learning 68 Immediate feedback if provided by 53 the instructor Course-‐wide 29 announcements/emails Online quizzes/tests 3

center, which reflects those items considered neutral compared to the others. A positive score indicates those aspects students thought would most likely affect their group work in this class; conversely, a negative score means that students thought this aspect was less likely to affect their group work in the course. Figure 1. Q-‐sort for Emerging Aspects Affecting Group Work -‐2 -‐1 0 +1 +2 X X X X X X X X X X X After sorting the answers of 120 participants using the Q-‐sort ranking, the

scores were calculated (see Table 2). Based on the rankings, six items received positive scores, while the rest drew negative scores. In order to gain more insight as to why the students perceived those six aspects with higher marks, in the third step, participants were asked to specify pros and cons of using Blackboard based upon the six emerging aspects that scored positively in Table 2. The qualitative data from these students provided a foundation for the following synopsis.

89% 86% 78% 75% 72% 71% 68% 57% 44% 24% 3%

(Gottschalk, 2001). Ranking forces all participants to use the complete scale, as evident in Figure 1, where the 11 emerging aspects were allocated to 11 available spaces from +2 to -‐2 in a quasi-‐normal distribution. Note that the ranking scale used in Q methodology purposefully sets zero at the

Table 2. Ranking of Aspects of Blackboard and Their Effects on a Training Course Rank Aspect of Blackboard that Score Affects Group Work 1 Interaction/collaboration 1.56 2 Productive/flexible process 1.30 3 Information/knowledge/ 1.18 content storage 4 Information sharing 1.02 5 Learning outcomes 0.67 6 Secured communication 0.32 7 Course-‐wide announcements/ -‐0.49 e-‐mails 8 Immediate feedback if -‐0.73 provided by instructor 9 Virtual Classroom -‐1.06 10 Self-‐paced learning -‐1.27 11 Online quizzes/tests -‐1.64

36

Interaction/Collaboration The biggest perceived advantage of Blackboard with regard to interactive communication and collaboration is the discussion board feature. One participant stated: Through the Discussion Boards, the professor can post topics to elicit collaborative responses from teams. We can read other students’ responses and find out what other students are thinking and reflecting. If each student were to write a paper on the topic and turn it into the professor, learning would only occur for the student who wrote the paper. By posting responses to Blackboard, the other collaborating students in the team or the entire class can learn as well. Another perceived advantage of Blackboard related to collaboration is its ability to create diverse learning groups. Class composition is often based upon the time of day the class is held. One participant commented: For instance, a class that meets at 10 a.m. is probably going to be comprised of traditional, full-‐time students, whereas a night class will likely have more students who work full-‐time and go to school part-‐ time. Class discussions held in a typical class would often be very different for these two groups, because the individuals in the groups have completely different points of reference. Online courses, or courses that utilize discussion boards, expand the knowledge base of the group because the members are more heterogeneous. However, disadvantages exist. One disadvantage is the impersonal nature of an electronic medium versus face-‐to-‐face interaction. Electronic communication necessitates interpretation of the written

Yin, Lien, & Werner

word. Sometimes the true intent of an individual may be misinterpreted because nonverbal communication is absent (Farrell, 2000). Additionally, there can be response time delays as a result of server-‐related issues, or delays could be a result of students not checking the discussion board or group portal frequently enough. As indicated by one participant, “…if a group of students were having a face-‐to-‐face discussion, the conversation would be more or less spontaneous or non-‐stop. With Blackboard discussion boards, time usually elapses before the communicator receives feedback.” Chat rooms could solve this dilemma; however, a chat room requires a mutually agreed upon meeting time.

Productive/Flexible Processes According to another participant, a second key advantage of Blackboard is that, “…information is quickly and easily available. This results in more productive and flexible use of time because we will not be wasting our time by accessing centrally-‐stored information.” In addition to this benefit is the ability to conduct meetings with people in various locations. Without an electronic medium such as Blackboard, organizations would spend a large amount of money making arrangements for everyone to meet in the same place. As noted by one participant, “Through the use of chat rooms and discussion boards, the need to meet in person may be reduced.” Instructors and trainers who use the software can be more productive because they can take care of administrative tasks, such as posting lecture notes, via the tool. One participant stated, “We will not need to bother instructors to ask what we have missed in class because we will know to check Blackboard. This can lead to increased productivity.” If instructors post notes on Blackboard, students can pay attention to the lecture and discussion instead of worrying about writing down every word the instructor speaks.


In order for Blackboard to be successful, however, everyone must use it. If students do not check for announcements, they may miss out on important information. According to one response, “…if a student has technical problems, it will affect his/her ability to stay abreast of the latest information pertaining to class. It also prevents him/her from keeping up with the coursework and discussions, which may negatively affect his/her grade.” Using electronic media may not be productive for every student. Some students may have disabilities or learning situations that require other modes of communication. They can avoid this problem if they set up an alternate arrangement in advance with the instructor.

Information/Knowledge Base/Content Storage

Yet another major advantage participants acknowledged related to information and content storage was the existence of a centralized storage place. Without a CMS, students are required to get information from the anonymous FTP server, in addition to information held on reserve at the library, either physically or electronically. Blackboard is advantageous in that it enables all students in the class to access and retrieve important class documents from a central online location at any time. An additional benefit of information storage participants noted was students’ ability to access information and upload files to the digital drop box from any location. One commented: I love the digital dropbox! It is very easy and convenient to upload and access documents on Blackboard. For example, if a student needed to access course information from home, s/he could accomplish this with Blackboard by utilizing any computer with Internet access from any computer that was on-‐line. The students do not need to be on campus

37

to obtain information or submit a file needed for completing an assignment. Students cited still more advantages of Blackboard and its information storage capacity. They liked the fact that it was real time. In other words, “…as soon as the professor posted course-‐related information, I was able to view it.” Blackboard allows for round-‐the-‐clock access, seven days per week. Users can see when and to whom messages were posted. Although using Blackboard certainly has advantages for information storage, participants also cited disadvantages. The main concern was storage size. Depending on the size of the server hard drive space, the number of professors posting information to Blackboard, and document size, server space could be quickly exhausted. Since the information is held online, it is very dependent on the server. As indicated by one participant, “If the server is down or the Web site is not working, I cannot access information that I need.” Furthermore, if students do not have a computer with Internet access, they will be required to find one that does. And if students prefer to have physical copies of material, they will need to print out the information and incur expenses for paper and ink. Information security was another concern raised by students. Even though users need a password to log onto Blackboard, hackers may be able to break into the system without authorization. Further, as one student noted, “…because it is so easy for professors to post information, professors may not be very selective when they post material. They may post more information than students can deal with, which can lead to information overload.” Information Sharing A platform such as Blackboard is also beneficial because it enables users to post and share information with one another (Arbaugh & Benbunen-‐Fich, 2007). According

38

Yin, Lien, & Werner

to a student, “…it allows us to exchange files within our group and with other groups.” Students can broaden their horizons because they can see how other students respond to various topics. Communication can occur on a one-‐on-‐one basis, small group basis, and whole-‐group basis, and the chat room feature allows for real-‐time communication. But Blackboard also has its disadvantages as an information sharing source. The biggest negative cited by students was over-‐sharing of information. Some students felt that other students could steal ideas. For example, one participant said, “Sometimes professors will post discussion board questions. We are required to respond to these questions based on research we complete. Some students feared that fellow students were not completing their own research, but rather copying other students’ posted work.”

working with computers for the first time, and others may not be familiar with groupware packages. Secured Communication A major component of Blackboard’s security is the username and password requirement. This prevents unauthorized users from accessing confidential information. As one student noted, “…those who are not enrolled in a course during a specific semester do not have access to the information related to that course.” Students agreed that logging onto Blackboard was a simple process. They also believed that the security measures allowed for private conversations between groups of students and professors. Also, professors can track work done by students by monitoring login records. However, many students were not so confident in the security of Blackboard. One major problem was that identities can be stolen. One participant indicated, “The username for accessing Blackboard for us is a combination of the student’s name and birthday. The initial password is my campus identification number. Other students may be able to figure these usernames and numbers out from other sources.” Another concern that was raised had to do with plagiarism. If students could gain access to the network through Blackboard, they could steal test documents or other secure information. Students who share passwords with others could be submitting work that is not truly their own. Students could also figure out how to alter their profile and “become” someone else. Finally, as with any online product, Blackboard could be affected by hackers. People who want to destroy or alter the information that professors post to Blackboard could do so if they gained illegal access to the platform.

Training/Learning Outcomes

Blackboard allows students to learn from other students. One commented, “The ability to look at how a peer classmate approaches a problem or situation could give me insight as how to more effectively structure my approach.” The environment also makes it easier for the students to complete group work. Many times, it becomes difficult for students to get together due to their different schedules and the fact that not all of them live on campus. Some prefer face-‐to-‐face interaction and believe using Blackboard takes away from the valuable social aspects of physically getting together to complete group work (Tham & Werner, 2004). One recommendation is to use Blackboard as a support tool, rather than a replacement tool. This way, as one student stated, “…we could meet as a group, and then exchange additional documents and ideas electronically via Blackboard.” Another recommendation is that students should be given training on the use of Blackboard. Although many can figure it out independently, some students may be

Conclusion Subjects in our study initially identified 11 areas where the use of Blackboard affected


their business technologies course. When they were then asked which of those 11 aspects had the greatest impact on their group work in the class, they highlighted six aspects. We have summarized their comments and concerns regarding interaction/collaboration, productive/flexible processes, information storage, information sharing, learning outcomes, and secured communications. Although exploratory in nature, we feel that the results of this research can provide useful guidance to both business and educational applications of groupware such as Blackboard. We predict that technology enhanced, group-‐based learning will continue to infiltrate both business training and professional education. For example, based on a survey conducted between 2006 and 2007, the U.S. Department of Education estimated that 75% of all two-‐ and four-‐year colleges and universities in the United States, to a large extent, offer some form of distance education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008). Within this context, course management system software such as Blackboard and Desire2Learn are already very popular at the post-‐secondary level (About Us, 2009; Higher Education, 2009). Some of this popularity is a direct result of need. Online courses require a platform where students and instructors can achieve course objectives from a distance. Software packages such as Blackboard provide students a means of communication with one another, the ability to find out about assignments, submit assignments, and check their grades. These software packages will become increasingly important for professional education as the shift from traditional face-‐to-‐ face training to e-‐learning gains popularity. Increasingly, virtual classrooms are now an alternative to traditional classrooms (Arbaugh, 2000; Arbaugh & Duray, 2002; Clark & Kwinn, 2007). Course management software, as with any software, has definite advantages and disadvantages. Corporations and universities who wish to embrace these new technologies

39

must be willing to put the time and resources into making the implementation a success (Yee Hsieh, 2004). No matter how many “bells and whistles” become available as a result of technology, each training program and educational institution will need to take a step back and evaluate whether or not the technology is really enhancing trainee and student learning (Brown, 2004; Horton, 2005; Noe, 2008). Resources are typically limited within a given timeframe; therefore, resource allocation decisions must be thoroughly planned and implemented with a progressive vision to develop human potential (Rothwell & Kazanas, 2004). As previously stated, this is most likely to occur when IT and training professionals work together to address critical design, implementation, and evaluation issues (Noe, 2008; Werner & DeSimone, 2009). This is a critical current issue for management education and development (Horton, 2005; West et al., 2007). Future research should expand upon the initial results presented above to more formally describe how and when a course management system such as Blackboard is an effective tool for trainee/student learning. Identification of contextual variables that affect learning outcomes in an online environment is still another area for research development. For example, might student responses to Blackboard differ if this research was replicated in a course that was not focused on technology, i.e., where a greater proportion of students were not “tech savvy?” Links between qualitative responses, such as those in this study, and more quantitative learning outcomes are also needed (Arbaugh & Benbunan-‐Fich, 2007; Clark & Kwinn, 2007). Regardless of which course management system or groupware is used, issues such as those identified in this article must be addressed in order to achieve positive learning outcomes and end-‐user satisfaction.

40

Yin, Lien, & Werner

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous internet-‐based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24(2), 213-‐233. Arbaugh, J., & Benbunan-‐Fich, R. (2007). The importance of participant interaction in online environments. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 853-‐865. Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with Web-‐based courses: An exploratory study of two on-‐line MBA programs. Management Learning, 33(3), 331-‐347. Bartlett, T. (1997). The hottest campus on the Internet. Business Week, 3549, 77. Bernerth, J. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human Resource Development Review, 3(1), 36-‐52. Blackboard Inc. (2009). Higher Education. Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.blackboard.com/inpractice/high ered/ Brown, K. G. (2004, December). Get a seat at the table. T&D, 58(12), 22-‐25. Brown, S. R. (1996, November). Q Methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561-‐567. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy. London: Oxford University Press. Clark, R. C., & Kwinn, A. (2007). The new virtual classroom: Evidence-‐based guidelines for synchronous e-‐learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Desire2Learn Incorporated. (2009). About Us. Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.desire2learn.com/about/ Farrell, J. N. (2000, September). Long live C-‐ learning. Training & Development, 54(9), 43-‐ 46. Foshay, R., & Bergeron, C. (2000). Web-‐based education: A reality check. TechTrends, 44(5), 16-‐19. Gottschalk, P. (2001, April-‐June). Key issues in IS management in Norway: An empirical study based on Q Methodology. Information Resources Management Journal, 14(2), 37-‐45. Guptill, B. (1992, April 20). Vendors face high hurdles to build groupware base. Network World, 9, 1, 41, 49-‐50.

Horton, W. (2005). Evaluating e-‐learning. Training, 42(9), 35-‐39. Hunt, C. S., & Burford, A. M. (1994, February). A new frontier for amplifying creativity and collaborative learning: Group support systems. Business Education Forum, 48(3) 31-‐ 34. James, M. L. (1997). Delivering the MBA via the Internet: Where do we begin? Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 1, 41-‐46. Jones, G. H., & Jones, B. H. (2008). Web-‐based course management software: An empirical study of faculty usage. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35(3), 251-‐260. Koenig, M. (2001, November/December). User education for KM: The problem we won’t recognize. KMWorld Magazine, 10(10), 24-‐26. Lu, L.-‐C., & Yeh, C.-‐L. (2008). Collaborative e-‐learning using semantic course blog. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 6(3), 85-‐95. McAteer, P. F. (1994). Harnessing the power of technology. Training & Development, 48(8), 64-‐68. Munter, M. (1998). Meeting technology: From low-‐ tech to high-‐tech. Business Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 80-‐87. Noe, R. A. (2008). Employee training and development (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-‐Hill. Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008, December). Distance education at degree-‐granting postsecondary education institutions: 2006-‐2007 (National Center for Education Statistics Rep. No. NCES 2009-‐044). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Perreault, H. R., & Moses, D. (1992). A comparison of face-‐to-‐face and groupware meeting approaches on a collaborative writing project. Remedial & Special Education, 34(4), 151-‐165. Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (2004). The strategic development of talent (2nd ed.). Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Saka, T., & Shiigi, C. (1996, November). Groupware: Improving group communication and information dissemination. T.H.E. Journal, 24(4), 101-‐105. Scalia, L. M., & Sackmary, B. (1996). Groupware in the classroom: Applications and guidelines. Computers in the Schools, 12(4), 39-‐51. Schoberth, T., Heinzl, A., & Preece, J. (2006). Exploring communication activities in online communities: A longitudinal analysis in the financial services industry. Journal of

References

Learning in Virtual Groups Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce, 16(3/4), 247-‐265. Tham, C. M., & Werner, J. M. (2004). Designing and evaluating e-‐learning in higher education: A review and recommendations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(2), 15-‐25. Watts, M., & Greenlaw, S. A. (1999). Using groupware to enhance teaching and learning in undergraduate economics. Journal of Economic Education, 30(1), 33-‐42. Werner. J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2009). Human resource development (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-‐Western, a part of Cengage Learning. West, R., Waddoups, G., & Graham, C. (2007). Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(1), 1-‐26. Wresch, W., Arbaugh, J., & Rebstock, M. (2005). International online management education courses: A study of participation patterns. Internet & Higher Education, 8(2), 131-‐144. Yee Hsieh, P. (2004, March/April). A case study. TechTrends, 48(2), 60-‐68

41

Learning in Virtual Groups: Identifying Key Aspects of a Course ...

Learning in Virtual Groups: Identifying Key Aspects of a Course ...

Suggest Documents