Do nontask interactions matter? The relationship between nontask sociability of computer supported collaborative learning and learning outcomes

While technological improvements of the computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) have been substantial, its nontask social aspect has not received proportional attention. This study investigates the notion of nontask sociability of CSCL, and identifies its relationship with the students' learning outcomes using the JOUR of an Australian postgraduate programme. Learning outcome is defined as a multiple variable consisting of pedagogical affect, student's interest and perceived learning. Five items were identified for operationalising the nontask sociability. These are 'finding help', 'sense of appealing', 'sense of boringness', 'sense of interactivity' and 'sense of frustration'. In addition, a strong relationship was revealed between nontask sociability and learning outcomes which implies that further attention needs to be given to the nontask aspect of the CSCL interactions. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are then discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Päivi Häkkinen,et al.  What Makes Learning and Understanding in Virtual Teams So Difficult? , 2004, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[3]  Ann C. Jones,et al.  Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2005, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[5]  Chih-Hsiung Tu,et al.  On-line learning migration: from social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment , 2000, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[6]  R. Gorsuch.  Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis. , 1997, Journal of personality assessment.

[7]  L. Lipponen,et al.  Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning , 2003 .

[8]  James Laffey,et al.  Assessing Social Ability in Online Learning Environments , 2006 .

[9]  Saskia Brand-Gruwel,et al.  Students' experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments , 2004, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  Jihn-Chang J. Jehng.  The Psycho-Social Processes and Cognitive Effects of Peer-Based Collaborative Interactions with Computers , 1997 .

[11]  A. Paswan,et al.  Student Evaluation of Instructor: A Nomological Investigation Using Structural Equation Modeling , 2002 .

[12]  John Hulland,et al.  Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies , 1999 .

[13]  L. Harasim.  Shift happens: online education as a new paradigm in learning , 2000, Internet High. Educ..

[14]  F. Fiedler,et al.  Leader attitudes, group climate, and group creativity. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[15]  Wynne W. Chin.  Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling by , 2009 .

[16]  Mark R. Young,et al.  Enhancing Learning Outcomes: The Effects of Instructional Technology, Learning Styles, Instructional Methods, and Student Behavior , 2003 .

[17]  Ronald B. Marks,et al.  Determinants of Student Evaluations of Global Measures of Instructor and Course Value , 2000 .

[18]  Thomas Chesney,et al.  An investigation of sociability measurements in online communities , 2005, Int. J. Web Based Communities.

[19]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research , 2004, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Sara McNeil,et al.  Facilitation interaction, communication and collaboration in online courses , 2000 .

[21]  Ted Clark,et al.  Disadvantages of collaborative online discussion and the advantages of sociability, fun and cliques for online learning , 2003 .

[22]  C. Gunawardena.  Social Presence Theory and Implications for Interaction and Collaborative Learning in Computer Conferences , 1995 .

[23]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. , 1999 .

[24]  Z. Berge,et al.  Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study , 2005 .

[25]  J. Finn,et al.  An exploration of helping processes in an online self-help group focusing on issues of disability. , 1999, Health & social work.

[26]  Eva R. Fahraeus.  Distance Education Students Moving Towards Collaborative Learning - A Field Study of Australian Distance. , 2004 .

[27]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[28]  Hans van Buuren,et al.  Determining Sociability, Social Space, and Social Presence in (A)synchronous Collaborative Groups , 2004, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[29]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success , 2001, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[30]  Cristian Bogdan,et al.  Reconsidering support for the members of specialized online communities , 2002 .

[31]  Luis Filipe Lages,et al.  Pedagogical affect, student interest, and learning performance , 2007 .

[32]  A. E. Veldhuis-Diermanse,et al.  Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education , 2001 .