This study examined the effects of collaboration mode (collocated versus non-collocated videoconferencing-mediated) on team learning and team interaction quality in a team-based problem solving context. Situated learning theory and the theory of affordances are used to provide a framework that describes how technology-mediated collaboration affects both the technical/operational and social aspects of team-based problem solving. An empirical interpretive research approach using direct observation is used to interpret, evaluate and rate observable manifested behaviors and qualitative content (i.e., discussions) associated with team learning. The study's findings revealed that facilitation of coordinated discourse and team member contributions as well as maintenance of a positive social climate are essential to the realization of greater team learning and interaction quality. Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the study are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakemanR. (2000). Behavioral observations and coding. In ReisH. T.JuddC. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 138–159). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BalijepallyV. G.MahapatraR. K.NerurS.PriceK. H. (2009). Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 91–118.
3.
BatesA. W. (2005). Technology, e-Learning and distance education. London & New York: Routledge.
4.
BrownJ.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 1, 32–42.
5.
BrownR. D.HauensteinN. M. A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the rwg indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8(2), 165–184.
6.
BullenM.JanesD. (Ed.). (2007). Making the transition to e-Learning: Strategies and issues. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
7.
CadieuxC. P. (2002). Variables associated with a sense of classroom community and academic persistence in an urban community college online setting. Doctoral dissertation submitted to Old Dominion University, Virginia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed474545).
8.
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4) 284–290.
9.
De DreuC. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628–638.
10.
DennisA.FullerR. M.ValacichJ. S. (2008). Media, tasks and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity, MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.
11.
DiazL. A.EntonadoF. B. (2009). Are the functions of teachers in e-learning and face-to-face learning environments really different?Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 331–343.
12.
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
13.
FischerF.MandlH. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.
14.
GibsonJ. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In ShawR.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
GreenS.TaberT. (1980). The effects of three social decision schemes in decision group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25(1), 97–106.
16.
HaslamS. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
17.
HongH.SullivanF. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(5), 613–627.
18.
KhatriV.VesseyI.RamS.RameshV. (2006). Cognitive fit between conceptual schemas and internal problem representations: The case of geospatio-temporal conceptual schema comprehension. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(2), 109–127.
19.
KingB.McCauslandH. (2000). Distance education in dual mode universities. In ReddyV. V.MajulikaS. (Eds.), The world of open and distance learning (pp. 399–416). New Delhi: Viva Books.
20.
KirschnerP.StrijbosJ.KreijnsK.BeersP. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(3), 47–66.
21.
KoeberC.WrightD. W. (2008). On the outside teaching in: Using internet videoconferencing to instruct an introductory sociology course from a remote location. Teaching Sociology, 36(4), 331–344.
22.
KumarN.BenbasatI. (2004). The effect of relationship encoding, task type, and complexity on information representation: An empirical evaluation of 2D and 3D line graphs. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 255–281.
LeinonenP.JarvelaS.LipponenL. (2003). Individual students' interpretations of their contribution to the computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(1), 99–122.
25.
LewisK.LangeD.GillisL. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6), pp. 581–600.
26.
MannS. J. (2005). Alienation in the learning environment: A failure of community?Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 43–56.
27.
MeierC. (2000). Videoconference-observations with respect to the structure and dynamics of a new communication situation. In BoosM.JonasK. J.SassenbergK. (Eds.), Computervermittelte Kommunikation in Organisationen (pp. 153–164). Göttingen Germany: Hogrefe.
28.
MitchellT. R.JamesL. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 530–547.
29.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
PedhazurE. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Wadsworth.
31.
Pena-ShaffJ. B.NichollsC. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243–265.
32.
PowerM. (2008). A dual-mode university instructional design model for academic Development. International Journal for Academic Development, 13(1), 5–16.
33.
QuigleyN. R.TekleabA. G.TeslukP. E. (2007). Comparing consensus- and aggregation-based methods of measuring team-level variables: The role of relationship conflict and conflict management processes. Organizational Research Methods, 10(4), 589–606.
34.
R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
35.
RobertsonT. (2002). The public availability of actions and artefacts. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Journal of Collaborative Computing, 11(3–4), 299–316.
36.
SawK. G.MajidO.GhaniN. AbdulAtanH.IdrusR. M.RahmanZ. A. (2008). The videoconferencing learning environment: Technology, interaction and learning intersect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 475–485.
37.
SeniorB.SwailesS. (2007). Inside management teams: Developing a teamwork survey instrument. British Journal of Management, 18(2), 138–153.
38.
SlavinR. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.
39.
TabachnikB. G.FidellL. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
40.
UmphreyL. R.WickershamJ. A.SherblomJ. C. (2008). Student perceptions of the instructor's relational characteristics, the classroom communication experience, and the interaction involvement in face-to-face versus video conference instruction. Communication Research Reports, 25(2), 102–114.
41.
van der MeijdenH.VeenmanS. (2005). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 831–859.
42.
WilsonV. E.SheetzS. D. (2008). Context counts: Effects of work versus non-work context on participants' perceptions of fit in e-mail versus face-to-face communication. Communications of AIS, 22, 311–338.
43.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
YooY.AlaviM. (2001), Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 371–390.
