Support for Asynchronous Interaction in Group Experiential Learning

To be relevant to the constantly changing work patterns of the real world, effective learning in universities often occurs in small groups facilitated by collaborative environments where participants are dynamically involved in purposeful activities.  The research described in this paper is an investigation of purposeful group work devised for experiential learning where a variety of socio-technical tools were used to support asynchronous tasks and communication among the learners.  In order to explore the complexity of this collaborative activity a distinctive inductive research approach has been adopted using reflective developmental methods.  The data collection and the analysis part of the research involved the reflection of participants on their activity being requested as reports within their course work.  Student reports were subject to content analysis using a computer-based tool that creates a conceptual map of collections of documents comparing the ratings and relationships of concepts among different sets of participants.  The study was enhanced by the use of Q-methodology that allows the participants to outline their views and to make individual decisions on the relative importance that they place upon the available views of the larger group. Concepts from Activity Theory allowed the researchers to take a holistic contextual approach both to the design of the research and the interpretation of the findings to make some sense of the complexity of the dynamic work-learning dialectic in a socio-technical collaborative setting. 

[1]  Steven R. Brown Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. , 1980 .

[2]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[3]  John C. Tang Findings from Observational Studies of Collaborative Work , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[4]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Grounding blue-sky research: how can ethnography help? , 1997, INTR.

[5]  L. Cordingley,et al.  Q methodology. , 1997, Nurse Researcher.

[6]  David Meister,et al.  Performance Measurement : Current Perspectives and Future Challenges , 2006 .

[7]  Geraldine Ann Fitzpatrick,et al.  The Locales Framework: understanding and designing for cooperative work , 1998 .

[8]  R. Magnus,et al.  The learning way:evaluating co-operative systems , 1999 .

[9]  Joseph A Meloche,et al.  Q Methodology as a research methodology for human computer interaction , 1999 .

[10]  Magnus Ramage,et al.  The learning way : evaluating co-operative systems , 1999 .

[11]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior , 2000, MIS Q..

[12]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  Understanding organizational learning by focusing on “activity systems” , 2000 .

[13]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  The mechanics of collaboration: developing low cost usability evaluation methods for shared workspaces , 2000, Proceedings IEEE 9th International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WET ICE 2000).

[14]  Bob McClelland,et al.  Digital learning and teaching: Evaluation of developments for students in higher education , 2001 .

[15]  David C. Caverly,et al.  Techtalk: Online Learning Communities. , 2002 .

[16]  I. Brown Individual and Technological Factors Affecting Perceived Ease of Use of Web‐based Learning Technologies in a Developing Country , 2002, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries..

[17]  Mihir A. Parikh,et al.  Utilizing Internet technologies to support learning: an empirical analysis , 2002, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[18]  Jane E. Klobas,et al.  Developing Community In Online Distance Learning , 2002, ECIS.

[19]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Socio-Technical Systems for Knowledge Mobilisation in Communities , 2003 .

[20]  Tobias Mueller-Prothmann,et al.  Designing Online Knowledge Communities: Developing a Usability Evaluation Criteria Catalogue , 2003 .