Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of collaboration mode and group composition during a computer-mediated collaborative (CMC) program. Six intact sections of a computer literacy course were assigned to either a face-to-face or a virtual, online collaboration treatment condition. Groups consisted of homogeneous lower-ability, homogeneous higher-ability, or heterogeneous-ability pairs. The study examined the effects of collaboration mode and group composition on individual posttest performance, group project performance, collaborative interaction behavior, and attitudes towards the instruction. Results indicated that virtual dyads exhibited significantly more questioning behaviors and significantly better project performance than those who collaborated face-to-face. By comparison, students in the face-to-face condition performed significantly better on the individual posttest than those in the virtual online condition. Findings suggest that both virtual and face-to-face collaboration can be effective in achieving learning goals. However, consideration should be given to the collaborative structure of the lesson and the type of task in the design of CMC environments.

Keywords

Virtual collaboration Computer-mediated instruction Interactions Ability-grouping E-learning 

References

  1. Adelskold, G., Alklett, K., Axelsson, R., & Blomgren, G. (1999). Problem-based distance learning of energy issues via computer network. Distance Education, 20(1), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. E., & Harris, J. B. (1997). Factors associated with amount of use and benefits obtained by users of a statewide educational telecomputing network. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Berge, Z. L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary web-based learning. Educational Technology, 39(1), 5–11.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, S. A. (2004). Small group learning in an online asynchronous environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  6. Brewer, S., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 54(3), 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruffee, K. (1995). Sharing our toys. Change, 27(1), 12–18.Google Scholar
  8. Cavalier, J. C., & Klein, J. D. (1998). Effects of cooperative versus individual learning and orienting activities during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 33(3), 52–72.Google Scholar
  9. Cavalier, J. C., Klein, J. D., & Cavalier, F. J. (1995). Effects of cooperative learning on performance, attitude, and group behaviors in a technical team environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(3), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, H. (2005). The effect of type of threading and level of self-efficacy on achievement and attitudes in online course discussion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  11. Chou, C. C. (2001). Student interaction in a collaborative distance-learning environment: A model of learner-centered computer-mediated interaction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 3005200.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–13.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, C., & Collins, S. (1996). The internet as a tool. Retrieved May 22, 2005, from ERIC database (ED 398 883).Google Scholar
  14. Dalton, D. W., Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). The effects of individual versus cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eastmond, D. (1995). Alone but together: Adult distance study through computer conferencing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  17. Elvers, G. C., Polzella, D. J., & Graetz, K. (2003). Procrastination in online courses: Performance and attitudinal differences. Teaching of Psychology, 20(2), 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Aely, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved June 21, 2005, from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.1/fahy.html.
  19. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Golas, K. (2002). Guidelines for designing online learning. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from Southwest Research Institute Web Site: http://www.tss.swri.org/tsd/publications/20021TSEC_ONLINELEARNING.html.Google Scholar
  21. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.Google Scholar
  22. Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 355–395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Hara, N. (2002). Analysis of computer-mediated communication: Using formal concept analysis as a visualizing methodology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(1), 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hativa, N. (1988). Computer-based drill and practice in arithmetic: Widening the gap between high and low achieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 366–397.Google Scholar
  25. Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous vs. homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoskins, S. L., & van Hoof, J. C. (2005). Motivation and ability: Which students use online learning and what influence does it have on their achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnston, V. L. (1996). Toward a global classroom using computer-mediated communications at UAA. University of Alaska Anchorage, Vocational Teacher Report, ERIC Document database (ED356759).Google Scholar
  30. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–25.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperative learning and traditional American values: An appreciation. NASSP Bulletin, 80(579), 63–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (1996). Advanced cooperative learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  33. Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated and face-to-face group problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jonassen, D., Prevish, T., Christy, D., & Stavulaki, E. (1999). Learning to solve problems on the Web: Aggregate planning in a business management course. Distance Education, 20(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Joung, S. (2003). The effects of high-structure cooperative versus low-structure collaborative design on online debate in terms of decision making, critical thinking, and interaction pattern. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.Google Scholar
  36. Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). On-line interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  38. King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem-solving within computer-assisted cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Computing, 5(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klein, J. D., & Doran, M. S. (1999). Implementing individual and small group learning structures with a computer simulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laffey, J., Tupper, T., Musser, D., & Wedman, J. (1998). A computer-mediated support system for project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers & Education, 40, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Naidu, S. (1997). Collaborative reflective practice: And instructional design architecture for the Internet. Distance Education, 18, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Olaniran, B., Savage, G. T., & Sorenson, R. L. (1996). Experimental and experiential approaches to teaching face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Communication Education, 45(3), 244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (2001). Student responses to collaborating and learning in a web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pena-Schaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42, 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ravits, J. (1997). An ISD model for building online communities: Furthering the dialog. The Annual Proceedings: Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 297–307.Google Scholar
  48. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52(4), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruberg, L. F., Moore, D. M., & Taylor, C. D. (1996). Student participation and interaction in the cmc interchange. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(3), 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 33, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salomon, G. (1999). Computer mediated conferencing in large scale management education. Open Learning, 14(2), 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sapp, D. A., & Simon, J. (2005). Comparing grades in online and face-to-face writing courses: Interpersonal accountability and institutional commitment. Computers and Composition, 22, 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Savenye, W. C. (2004). Alternatives for assessing learning in web-based distance learning courses. Distance Learning, 1(1), 29–35.Google Scholar
  54. Savenye, W. C. (2005). Learning technology integration from video cases: Development and research issues. In M. Orey, J. McClendon & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (30th ed., pp. 110–126). Westport, CN: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  55. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Kotchman (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 14–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  56. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sherman, G. P., & Klein, J. D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, B. L., & McGregor, J. (1992). What is cooperative learning? In A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher, V. Tino, B. L. Smith, & J. McGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. Washington DC: ERIC.Google Scholar
  59. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Point-counterpoint: Ability grouping; cooperative learning and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 3–8.Google Scholar
  60. Slavin, R. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and alternatives. Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  62. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Susman, E. B. (1998). Cooperative learning: A review of factors that increase the effectiveness of cooperative computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small group ability and small group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 259–274.Google Scholar
  65. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). IT by the numbers. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from The Chronicle of Higher Education Web Site: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i21/21b02901.htm.Google Scholar
  66. Uribe, D., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. VanDehey, T., & Thorsen, C. (2002). Model technology integration school program. Boise, ID: Boise State University.Google Scholar
  68. Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Warkentin, M., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. T. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 975–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  2. 2.Division of Psychology in EducationArizona State University – TempeTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations