The Effects of Communication Modality on Outcomes of Collaborative Tasks

Collaborative learning involves students working in small groups to complete tasks related to class instruction. Collaborative learning techniques are widely used in business schools. There is research evidence to suggest that collaborative learning leads to positive outcomes. Specifically, the interaction that occurs among students in completing the group task provides both educational and social benefits. The easy availability of communication technology has changed the modality of interaction among students. This change has been furthered by an increase in the number of students who work full-time and also enroll in business schools. Such students tend to interact more using communication technologies, such as electronic mail and not necessarily face-to-face. The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of these changes in communication modalities on the outcomes of group work. The results indicate that while students have a preference for using traditional face-to-face interaction, there seems to be no significant correlation between communication modality and measures of group outcomes.

[1]  C A Robinson,et al.  Lighten up , 1996, British Dental Journal.

[2]  J. McGrath.  Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) , 1991 .

[3]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Improving student processing and assimilation of conceptual information: GSS-supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning , 1996, Proceedings of HICSS-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  An Attribute Space for Organizational Communication Channels , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Impact of Goal and Resource Interdependence on Problem-Solving Success , 1989 .

[6]  Michael H. Zack,et al.  Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing Management Groups , 1993, Inf. Syst. Res..

[7]  Peter Akinsola Okebukola,et al.  The relative effectiveness of cooperative and competitive interaction techniques in strengthening students' performance in science classes , 1985 .

[8]  Maryam Alavi,et al.  Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation , 1994, MIS Q..

[9]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management School Education: A Theoretical View , 1995, MIS Q..

[10]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[11]  N. Noddings.  Theoretical and Practical Concerns about Small Groups in Mathematics , 1989, The Elementary School Journal.

[12]  E. Cohen.  Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[13]  P. Abrami,et al.  The Relationship between Student Team Learning Outcomes and Achievement, Causal Attributions, and Affect. , 1991 .

[14]  Sue Black.  The Well-Rounded Student. , 2002 .

[15]  Debra Ann King-Johnson.  Using analogies to form conceptual models to facilitate transfer , 1992 .

[16]  Stephen R. Acker.  Space, Collaboration, and the Credible City: Academic Work in the Virtual University , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[17]  S. Sharan.  Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations , 1980 .

[18]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning , 1997, Decis. Support Syst..

[19]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Learning Together and Alone , 1999 .

[20]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) , 2017 .

[21]  R. Slavin.  When does cooperative learning increase student achievement , 1983 .

[22]  Scott Lewis,et al.  Problem-Solving Strategies and Group Processes in Small Groups Learning Computer Programming , 1986 .

[23]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperative learning and achievement. , 1990 .

[24]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Using IT to Reengineer Business Education: An Exploratory Investigation of Collaborative Telelearning , 1995, MIS Q..

[25]  Jolene Galegher,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication for Intellectual Teamwork: An Experiment in Group Writing , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[26]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  User satisfaction with computer-mediated communication systems , 1990 .

[27]  Elizabeth G. Cohen,et al.  Can Classrooms Learn , 1989 .

[28]  樊希强,et al.  Cooperative Learning , 2020, Teaching High School Physics.

[29]  N. Webb.  Peer interaction and learning in small groups , 1989 .

[30]  Nancy J. Evans,et al.  The Group Attitude Scale , 1986 .

[31]  Joseph E. McGrath,et al.  Time matters in groups , 1990 .

[32]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Interdependence and Interpersonal Attraction Among Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Individuals: A Theoretical Formulation and a Meta-analysis of the Research , 1983 .

[33]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  The Information Age Confronts Education: Case Studies on Electronic Classrooms , 1993, Inf. Syst. Res..

[34]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Understanding the use of Group Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Structuration , 1990 .

[35]  R. Slavin.  Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice , 1990 .

[36]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Classroom Conflict: Controversy Versus Debate in Learning Groups , 1985 .

[37]  S. Green,et al.  The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process , 1980 .

[38]  Dennis Raphael,et al.  Communication and Problem Solving Achievement in Cooperative Learning Groups. , 1990 .

[39]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[40]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  Group outcome: The relationship between group learning outcome, attributional style, academic achievement, and self-concept☆ , 1992 .

[41]  N. Webb.  Predicting learning from student interaction: Defining the interaction variables , 1983 .