Characterized as “anytime and anywhere learning,” online degree programs are currently attracting an increasingly large number of in-service teachers who lack opportunities to attend traditional face-to-face classes during specific time periods (Belanger & Jordan, 2000; Birnbaum, 2001; Mehlinger & Powers, 2002; Schulz, 2003; Zern, 2001). Consequently, there has been much discussion regarding the most effective instructional approaches needed for meeting their needs.<\/p>\n
Within the literature in this emerging field, there seems to be a consensus that online instruction needs to move away from teacher-centered models toward more learner-centered ones in which student collaboration is encouraged (Barab, 2004; Pierce, 2003; Weiss, Knowlton, & Speck, 2000).\u00a0 Yet, this emphasis poses challenges for online teacher education programs. In many instances, online teacher educators need to consider whether the inclusion of collaborative work can provide a positive learning experience and if it can be conducted in a manner that subsequently impacts the teacher participants\u2019 own beliefs about pedagogy (Pajares, 1992).\u00a0 This issue is important, given that in-service teachers are often required to implement student-centered learning in their own classroom practice (Kochan, 2000; Schultz, 2003).<\/p>\n
Although a significant amount of research has cited the benefits of collaborative learning in face-to-face learning environments (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2004), there are only a handful of studies investigating how in-service teachers perceive online collaborative group tasks. As more in-service teachers enroll in online programs, this issue calls for the attention of faculty and instructional designers regarding the teachers\u2019 perceptions and viewpoints about group learning processes.<\/p>\n
To better understand this dynamic, in a previous study we examined teachers\u2019 self-reported benefits while participating in an online group project (An & Kim, 2007). We found that the three primary benefits perceived as valuable by in-service teachers included the following: the development of their metacognitive knowledge; their recognition of the value of a supportive learning community; and their new understanding of the constructive use of online communication tools.<\/p>\n
To further examine collaborative learning in virtual environments, the study reported in this article explored the specific factors teachers perceived as facilitating or impeding their successful completion of online group projects. Without a proper understanding of in-service teachers\u2019 viewpoints that come from their own group learning experiences in online environments, the implementation of a group project in an online teacher education program may not be successful. Thus, by analyzing the facilitative and impeding factors, this study has the potential to help online faculty in teacher education programs better design and facilitate group projects in online environments. The research questions driving this study were as follows:<\/p>\n
Conceptual Framework<\/p>\n
Online Learning for Teachers<\/p>\n
Distance learning has been utilized in educational settings for many years, taking on a variety of forms. With the advent of the Internet, online learning has been rapidly expanding into the realm of teacher education, since it provides a convenient means for fitting coursework into\u00a0busy schedules (Belanger & Jordan, 2000; Birnbaum, 2001; Schulz, 2003; Zern, 2001). Further, online schools of education vigorously market their programs to attract teachers who want to attain recertification requirements and to update their knowledge and skills for teaching methods and new technologies (Belanger & Jordan, 2000; Birnbaum, 2001; Schulz, 2003).<\/p>\n
Although earlier efforts at providing distance education were mainly based on a linear and behaviorist approach focusing on the transmission of predefined knowledge and skills, newer initiatives tend to encourage social interaction among participants (Vrasidas & Glass, 2003). Supported by computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies (e.g., discussion boards, chat tools, etc.), many online courses have now adopted collaborative learning methods so that students experience opportunities for sharing and constructing knowledge (Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, & Jochems, 2005).<\/p>\n
Considering the popularity of collaborative learning methods in current online programs, educators must understand how participants experience their online learning so that more effective courses and activities can be developed. This understanding is particularly important for online teacher education programs, because the experiences and perspectives teachers obtain there will influence their willingness to implement this learning method in their own classrooms.<\/p>\n
Collaborative Learning via CMC<\/p>\n
Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) asserted that students need to be able to work with and listen to others and develop ways of dealing with complex issues and problems requiring different kinds of expertise. To bring out expected learning outcomes, each person\u2019s contribution needs to be respected, and the community as a whole should be able to synthesize diverse views (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999). An emphasis on collaboration as an essential element of this process can strengthen group processing skills, subsequently enhancing citizenship in a diverse democracy (Cohen 2001; Dewey, 1902\/1966). Within this framework, knowledge cannot simply be transmitted from teacher to student or from individual to individual. Instead, knowledge is developed through the synthesis of social experiences transpiring in the classroom. In other words, the goal of the collaborative learning is not merely “knowledge acquisition” and “participation,” (Doolittle, 2001; Sfard, 1998), but “knowledge building” focusing on knowledge creation (Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004).<\/p>\n
The terms collaborative<\/i> and cooperative<\/i> are often used interchangeably, even though they are considered as two different research fields. Throughout this article, we use the term collaborative learning<\/i> and define it as a learning method that implies “working in a group of two or more to achieve a common goal, while respecting each individual\u2019s contribution to the whole” (McInnerney & Robert, 2004, p. 205).<\/p>\n
Numerous studies have shown that learning through collaboration, as compared to competitive or individual learning, usually results in higher achievement, better psychological connections (caring, support, and commitment), greater psychological health, social competence, and self-esteem (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Smith, 1995). \u00a0It has been also argued that incorporating well-planned collaborative activities into online teacher education benefits teachers as well as their students, since higher order thinking skills are more likely to be generated (Schultz, 2003) and to impact the learning process by improving socialization skills, as well as enhancing critical thinking (Jegede, 2002). Other benefits of online collaboration that have been cited include reflection, peer feedback (Ruhleder & Michael, 2000), and the reduction of anxieties in social situations (Gokhale, 1995).<\/p>\n
However, simply assigning students into a group and asking them to work collaboratively will not guarantee that they will collaborate (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Johnson and Johnson (2004) specified five basic elements needed for effective group collaboration: (a) positive interdependence, (b) promotive interaction, (c) individual accountability, (d) appropriate use of social skills, and (e) group processing.<\/p>\n
According to Johnson and Johnson (2004), positive interdependence, which is the heart of effective collaboration, transpires when each member in a group perceives that he or she cannot succeed unless the group does. Another element for effective collaboration is promotive interaction, which exists when group members act as trustworthy members by acknowledging and challenging each other\u2019s ideas and facilitating each other\u2019s efforts. To ensure each member\u2019s active participation in a group project, individual accountability should be taken into account. This accountability can be achieved when each group member\u2019s performance is assessed. Using collaborative learning requires group members to have social skills for trust building within the team, clear communication, and constructive conflict resolution. Group processing includes monitoring all members\u2019 work to ensure the quality of the work, facilitating social interaction, and ensuring reciprocal interaction so that group members can collaborate effectively.<\/p>\n
With the advent of the Internet and communicative media, there have also been many attempts to incorporate collaborative learning methods in online environments. Hiltz and Turoff (2002) suggested that collaborative learning activities, which are well-suited for online environments, include debates, group projects, case study discussions, simulations, role-playing exercises, the sharing of solutions for homework problems, and the collaborative composition of essays, stories, and research plans. However, in reality, most online collaborative work is usually relegated to discussion board conversations, in which students merely generate a dialogue with their peers about the weekly readings. Although this type of activity can certainly be of relevance, the extent of actual collaboration is usually limited.<\/p>\n
Similarly, there have been more critical views taken by several researchers. Dirkx and Smith (2004) found that learners are often reluctant, frustrated, and dissatisfied with collaborative learning methods, especially when working within small online groups, because they “struggle with the development of a sense of interdependence and intersubjectivity within their online groups, but end up holding fast to subjective, individualistic conceptions of learning” (p. 134). They further asserted that these aspects can be exacerbated in online environments, due to the difficulty in providing the emotional dynamics, which are often cited as being a critical element of the collaborative learning process. Likewise, Birnbaum (2001) argued that difficulties might be more likely to occur when group members try to reach a\u00a0consensus in online group work, since there are no verbal or facial cues to help resolve possible conflicts.<\/p>\n
Although online learning environments equipped with communicative technologies improve upon distance-based collaboration in an asynchronous manner, computer-mediated communication puts other demands on participants (Hron & Friedrich, 2003). Hron and Friedrich argued that online participants need to possess or be trained to have enough computer literacy so that technology does not interfere with their communication. They also warned that less motivated participants may withdraw from active participation due to the extra steps involved in computer-mediated communication when reading and writing discussion board postings. Even highly motivated participants can be frustrated when they do not get timely feedback from group members. In addition, the accumulated messages on the discussion board may become overwhelming for participants to digest (Hron & Friedrich, 2003). Furthermore, unlike in face-to-face environments, an individual\u2019s actions or activities are not easily visible to others in online environments.<\/p>\n
Several researchers have argued that an awareness of information, defined as an “understanding of the activities of others” (Dourish & Bellotti, 1992, p. 1), provides the groundwork for collaborative activities (Carroll, Neale, Isenhour, Rosson, & McCrickard, 2003; Dourish & Bellotti, 1992). Gunawardena (1995) pointed out that in computer-mediated collaborative learning environments failure is more likely to occur on a social rather than technical level, because computer-mediated collaboration is far more complex than face-to-face collaboration.<\/p>\n
Currently, online collaborative learning tends to focus on the cognitive process by emphasizing task-oriented communication, while assuming that the social dimension will occur automatically via communicative technologies (Kreijns et al., 2003). However, individuals will not willingly share their tentative ideas or critically challenge others\u2019 opinions unless they trust group members and feel a sense of belonging (Kreijns et al., 2003; Rourke, 2000). Therefore, collaboration often remains shallow due to the lack of affective group support.<\/p>\n
Given these critical viewpoints toward collaborative learning in online environments and the dearth of empirical studies on teachers\u2019 perspectives toward online collaborative learning, An and Kim (2007) examined the ways in which in-service teachers enrolled in an online master\u2019s program perceived their online group project experiences. They found that the teachers reported difficulties from participating in online group projects, yet the positive experiences outweighed the negative ones. Teachers reported that their participation in the online group project facilitated the following three benefits:<\/p>\n
Yet, the students also reported that difficulties in doing online group projects. Such issues included cognitive conflicts, individual differences, group grading, different time-zones, and the unique challenges caused by not being able to communicate face-to-face.<\/p>\n
This current study builds on previous research by revealing the factors that facilitate or impede the successful completion of online group projects. The study was accomplished by analyzing the perspectives of in-service teachers.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Methods<\/p>\n
Context and Participants<\/p>\n
Twenty-four students (16 female and 8 male) enrolled in an instructional technology course during the summer 2005 semester at an online graduate school of education located in the southwestern U.S volunteered to participate in this study. The course was taught by the first author of this paper. The majority of participants were K-12 in-service teachers, except two participants (one participant was a technology coordinator, while another was an academic counselor at a K-12 school). Participants ranged in age from 29-56 years old and logged in to the course from locations throughout the U.S., in states such as Arizona, California, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington.<\/p>\n
The instructor randomly formed groups of three to four students, and each group was provided with a group discussion board situated in the Blackboard Learning SystemTM. They were also welcome to use other types of communication methods, such as the phone or email, but most students reported that they primarily used the BlackBoard discussion board. The instructor did not intervene in any group processes, except for answering student questions in relation to the project. Student assessment was based on the group\u2019s work, rather than the efforts of any particular individual. A description of the 4-week group project can be found in Appendix A<\/a>.<\/p>\n Data Collection<\/p>\n The instructor invited class participants to fill out an online survey (see Appendix B<\/a> – PDF) during the last day of the course on a voluntary-basis. Besides the participants\u2019 profiles and communication method questions, the survey consisted of open-ended questions, in an effort to better understand students\u2019 beliefs and perceptions regarding online collaboration (as in Ellis, 2004; Leow, 2000).\u00a0 The participants were asked to comment on the factors they perceived as important for the successful completion of the online group project. Similarly, there was a question regarding the factors believed to have hindered the successful completion of the online group project.<\/p>\n Data Analysis<\/p>\n We adapted a quantified qualitative data analysis of the open-ended questions (Chi, 1997; Creswell, 1994; Rourke & Anderson, 2004; Wilson, 2001). The literature suggests blending both qualitative and quantitative analyses in order to remove shortcomings of each method when investigating what a learner knows and how that knowledge influences the way the learner solves problems (Chi, 1997; Creswell, 1994; Wilson, 2001). In order to do this, coding schemes were developed, the raters were trained, and interrater reliability was established.<\/p>\n To begin with, two coding schemes (Facilitative and Impeding factors) were developed through an iterative process by identifying themes in students\u2019 written production and by referring to the literature (see appendixes C<\/a> and D<\/a>). The Facilitative Factors Coding Scheme consisted of five major categories, while the Impeding Factors Coding Scheme consisted of seven major categories.<\/p>\n Analysis of students\u2019 written protocols occurred at different phases. First, two coders segmented all the features in the students\u2019 answers using the coding schemes (Segmenting stage). This served as a preliminary data set.\u00a0 Following the preliminary segmentation, interrater agreement on the preliminary segmented units was determined. The interrater reliability reached 92% and 93% on the Facilitative Factors and the Impeding Factors, respectively. \u00a0Interrater reliability for the analysis of the written protocols was computed by percentage agreement, set at the acceptable level of 85%.<\/p>\n Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The two coders (the first two authors of this article) then individually coded the segmented units based on the coding schemes (Coding stage). Lastly, interrater reliability was again checked for all answers and discrepancies were again resolved by discussion.<\/p>\n Caution was taken to rule out the possibility that some students were simply more articulate or fluent in their written protocols. For instance, if a student described the same idea using different expressions, such as “being able to work together” and “cooperation from all parties” only one point was assigned to the answer. In a similar manner, if one student combined a couple of ideas in one sentence, the sentence was divided into subcategories of those ideas. For example, one student wrote, “A leader who took charge in delegating roles as well as people within the group accepting those roles and completing their parts on time.” This sentence was broken into three units: “A leader who took charge in delegating roles,” “people within the group accepting those roles,” and “\u2026completing their parts on time.”<\/p>\n Appendixes B<\/a> and C<\/a> show the examples of students\u2019 written protocols on two survey questions along with definitions of each category.<\/p>\n Results and Discussion<\/p>\n Through the data analysis process, we found a total of 68 units for the perceived facilitative factors and 51 units for the impeding factors. Table 1 lists, in order of percentage, the factors contributing to successful online group projects: individual accountability, affective team support, presence of a positive leader, consensus building skills, and clear instructions. Table 2 lists, in order of percentage, seven impeding factors indicated by the participants: lack of individual accountability, challenges inherent to virtual communication relying solely on written language, technology problems, unclear instructional guidelines, different time zones, lack of a positive leader, and lack of consensus building skills.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Table 1<\/b>
\nIn-Service Teachers\u2019 Perceived Facilitative Factors<\/i><\/p>\n