An Evaluation Model for Collaborative Online Courses: The Impact of Knowledge Sharing and Communication Climate

  • Therese Grohnert
  • Katerina Bohle Carbonell
  • Amber Dailey-Hebert
  • Mien Segers
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Business Education and Training book series (ABET, volume 5)

Abstract

Increasing globalization and changes in the business landscape have pushed the concept of lifelong learning into the center of employee development as companies’ strategic advantage arises from the knowledge and skills of employees. In order to stay competitive in the labor market, and to accommodate the multiple life priorities of family and work, an increasing number of professionals follow (part-time) courses and programs online. Yet, little research has neither focused on the perceived learning and satisfaction of professional learners in this virtual environment nor investigated the factors that contribute to them. Using a mixed method approach, this chapter compares two online courses (one successful, one unsuccessful) provided for professional learners. A model framework is presented to unearth factors that influence perceived learning and satisfaction of professionals in online courses, which results in a strong correlation between creating a positive communication climate, collaborative knowledge sharing, and perceived learning and satisfaction of professionals.

Keywords

Learning Environment Collaborative Learning Online Learning Professional Learner Discussion Board 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ali, I. M., Pascoe, C., & Warne, L. (2002). Interactions of organizational culture and collaboration in working and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 5(2), 60–68.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, S. J., Thursfield, D., Landri, P., Ponzini, G., Wankel, C., & DeFillippi, R. (2008). Challenges of educating European managers of lifelong learning. In C. Wankel & R. DeFillippi (Eds.), University and corporate innovations in lifelong learning (pp. 91–131). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Booth, A., Carroll, C., Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., & Wong, R. (2009). Applying findings from a systematic review of workplace-based e-learning: Implications for health information professionals. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(1), 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  5. Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 16(2), 137–159.Google Scholar
  6. Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Vries, R. E. (2006). Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33(2), 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van Den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Den van Bossche, P. (2006). Minds in teams: The influence of social and cognitive factors on team learning. Maastricht: Maastricht University.Google Scholar
  10. Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (Vol. 48). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Frick, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., Wang, Y., & Green, P. (2007). College student perceptions of teaching and learning quality. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 705–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.Google Scholar
  13. Hooff, B. V. D., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hull, D. M., & Saxon, T. F. (2009). Negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge: An experimental analysis of asynchronous online instruction. Computers & Education, 52(3), 624–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hutchins, H. M., & Hutchison, D. (2008). Cross-disciplinary contributions to e-learning design: A tripartite design model. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(5), 364–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3–4), 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirkpatrick, D. (1996, January). Great ideas revisited – Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Training & Development, 1996, 54–59.Google Scholar
  18. Knowles, M. S. (2003). Andragogy – Not pedagogy. In P. Jarvis & C. Griffin (Eds.), Adult and continuing education: Major themes in education (Vol. IV, pp. 119–239). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kolb, D. A. (2003). The process of experiential learning. In Jarvis, P. & Griffin, C. (Eds.), Adult and continuing education: Major themes in education (Vol. IV, pp. 115–179). London: Routledge. doi:  10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4
  20. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3. doi: 10.1002/ace.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs; A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Pence, C., & Wulf, C. (2009). Asynchronous learning forums for business acculturation. Industry & Higher Education, 23, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Piirto, J. (Ed.). (2010). Europe in figures. Eurostat yearbook 2010. Luxembourg: Statistical office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  24. Quintana, C., Shin, N., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2006). Learner-centered design: Reflections on the past and directions for the future. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 119–134). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rehm, M., Gijselaers, W. H., & Segers, M. (2010). Diversity in communities of learning: The influence of hierarchical position on individuals’ activity and performance. In S. Halley, C. Birch, D. T. Tempelaar, M. McCuddy, N. Hernández Nanclares, S. Reeb-Gruber, et al. (Eds.), Crossing borders in education and work-based learning (pp. 300–307). Maastricht: FEBA ERD Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D. T., Waterval, D., Rehm, M., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2006). Remedial online teaching on a summer course. Industry and Higher Education, 20(5), 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79–93. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. D., & Grooms, L. D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 7–13. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Introduction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Slotte, V., & Tynjälä, P. (2005). Communication and collaborative learning at work: Views expressed on a cross-cultural e-learning course. International Journal on E-learning, 4(2), 191–207.Google Scholar
  31. Tenenbaum, G. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 87–111. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00017-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time e-learners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking e-learning programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 73–85.Google Scholar
  33. Tynjälä, P., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). E-learning at work: Theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical challenges. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6), 318–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly & The Society for Information Management, 29(1), 35–57.Google Scholar
  35. Wenger, E. C. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (1999, January–February). Communities of practice: The organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78, 139–145.Google Scholar
  37. Zimmerman, B. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 705–722). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Therese Grohnert
    • 1
  • Katerina Bohle Carbonell
    • 1
  • Amber Dailey-Hebert
    • 2
  • Mien Segers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational Research and Development, School of Business and EconomicsMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtNetherlands
  2. 2.Center for Excellence in Teaching and LearningPark UniversityParkvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations