Learning in Virtual Groups: Identifying Key Aspects of a Course ...

4 downloads 72527 Views 213KB Size Report
students utilizing Blackboard in an IT training course at a Midwestern ... Burford (1994) mention Adobe System's. Acrobat and its feature that allows users to.
Learning  in  Virtual  Groups:  Identifying  Key   Aspects  of  a  Course  Management  System   Affecting  Teamwork  in  an  IT  Training  Course    

 

                                                               

 

 

                 

                          L.  Roger  Yin     Nancy  Lien  

Jon  M.  Werner    

In  this  study,  we  investigated  the  evolving  nature  of  e-­‐learning  in  a  group  setting  via   Blackboard,  a  widely  adopted  educational  groupware,  or  course  management  system   (CMS).  End  users  were  questioned  concerning  how  they  perceived  key  aspects  of  using   Blackboard   affected   the   collaboration   of   their   group   work   in   a   graduate   class.   Similar   to   the   way   that   business   groupware   blossomed   in   client-­‐server   networked   environments   in   the   1990s,   CMSs   have   become   increasingly   popular   in   online   postsecondary   education   and   corporate   training   settings   in   the   Internet-­‐enhanced   environment   of   the   past   decade   (Noe,   2008).   Like   business   groupware,   CMSs   have   advantages   that   extend   beyond   the   traditional   classroom.   Subjects   were   120   graduate   students  utilizing  Blackboard  in  an  IT  training  course  at  a  Midwestern  university.  We   collected   their   perceptions   concerning   the   use   of   this   technological   tool   and   its   potential   effect   on   their   group   work   in   that   course.   Using   a   Q-­‐Sort   methodology,   six   important   aspects   of   course   management   systems   were   identified   by   students:   (a)   information   storage,   (b)   information   sharing,   (c)   interaction,   (d)   productivity,   (e)   security,   and   (f)   learning/training   outcomes.   Technology-­‐enhanced,   group-­‐based   communication   and   learning   will   continue   to   increase   in   both   business   training   and   professional   education.   To   be   successful,   however,   resource   allocation   must   be   carefully   planned   and   implemented   in   online   education   and   training   with   a   progressive  vision  to  develop  human  potential.     business  groupware  is  IBM/Lotus  Notes.   Introduction1   More  recently,  course  management  systems     (CMSs)  as  educational  groupware  have   In  the  age  of  information  explosion,  which   began  in  the  early  1990s,  the  quest  for  a   L.  Roger  Yin  is  Professor,  Department  of   networked  environment  where  stakeholders   Information  Technology  and  Business   are  engaged  to  share,  learn,  and  collaborate   Education,  College  of  Business  and  Economics,   University  of  Wisconsin-­‐Whitewater,   as  dynamic  teams  has  gained  popularity  and   Whitewater,  Wisconsin.   become  a  socioeconomic,  cross-­‐cultural     phenomenon  (Castells,  2001;  Lu  &  Yeh,  2008;   Nancy  Lien  is  Professor,  Graduate  Institute  of   Wresch,  Arbaugh,  &  Rebstock,  2005).  The   Multicultural  Education,  National  Hualien   most  significant  network  applications  were   University  of  Education,  Hualien,  Taiwan.     spearheaded  by  business  groupware  in  client-­‐   server  systems.  A  prominent  example  of   Jon  M.  Werner  is  Professor,  Department  of   1

This paper was accepted for publication in October 2010.

Management,  College  of  Business  and   Economics,  University  of  Wisconsin-­‐ Whitewater,  Whitewater,  Wisconsin.  

Information  Technology,  Learning,  and  Performance  Journal,  Vol.  25,  No.  2  

30  

Learning  in  Virtual  Groups  

become  common  in  an  Internet-­‐based   environment  (West,  Waddoups,  &  Graham,   2007;  Yee  Hsieh,  2004).  In  this  article,  we   first  discuss  the  roles,  functions,  purposes,   and  evolving  nature  of  groupware  in  general.   We  later  investigate  the  perceived  key   aspects  of  Blackboard,  an  educational   groupware  or  CMS,  and  how  Blackboard   (Blackboard,  2009)  is  believed  to  affect  group   work  in  an  MBA-­‐level  IT  training  course.  We   argue  that  a  technology  like  Blackboard  can   be  an  effective  tool  to  facilitate  learning,  but   only  if  it  is  used  and  implemented  properly   (Brown,  2004).  The  research  question  we   intend  to  address  is:  What  do  end-­‐users  of   Blackboard  think  of  this  tool  in  the  context  of   a  classroom-­‐based  IT  training  course,  and   what  particular  aspects  of  using  Blackboard   most  significantly  affect  teamwork  and  group   dynamics?   Also  of  importance  is  a  basic   understanding  of  what  groupware  can  do  and   how  it  can  be  used  in  an  educational  setting.   McAteer  (1994)  provides  an  example:     Lotus  Notes  acts  as  a  common  channel   for  distributing  information,  tracking   projects,  and  facilitating  group   discussions.  It  allows  widely   dispersed  people  to  share  information   as  if  they  all  had  access  to  a  common   desktop  equipped  with  tools  for   sharing,  routing,  and  updating  files;   sending  messages;  scheduling   meetings;  and  sorting  information  (p.   65).     Other  forms  of  groupware  allow  users  to   share  specific  types  of  information.  Hunt  and   Burford  (1994)  mention  Adobe  System’s   Acrobat  and  its  feature  that  allows  users  to   share  graphic  images.  They  also  point  out  that   other  groupware  products  focus  on  workflow   management.  These  packages  allow  people  to   map  the  steps  in  a  process  or  to  route  forms   or  documents  between  one  another  (Hunt  &   Burford,  1994,  p.  32).    

31

Benefits   Many  potential  benefits  are  associated  with   groupware,  and  we  list  many  of  them  as  cited   by  various  authors.    This  list  is  not   comprehensive;  rather,  it  is  a  representative   listing  of  benefits  found  in  the  readings  used   for  the  analysis  of  this  topic.         According  to  Munter  (2001),  groupware:     • Allows  geographically  dispersed   groups  a  choice  of  meeting   arrangements.   • Expedites  meeting  follow-­‐up   activities,  because  decisions  and   action  items  may  be  recorded.     According  to  Hunt  and  Burford  (1994):     • Groups  generally  have  more   information  than  one  individual.   • Groups  are  better  than  one  individual   at  detecting  errors  in  proposed  ideas.   • Members  of  a  group  may  encourage   and  stimulate  each  other  to  be   productive  and  creative.   • Members  may  learn  from  and  imitate   the  most  skilled  members  of  the   group.   • Groupware  has  the  potential  to   eliminate  negatives  often  associated   with  grouping,  such  as:  feeling   pressure  to  conform  and  socialize,   forgetting  responses  of  others,  lacking   focus  on  issues  involved,  waiting   longer  for  feedback,  and  giving  loafers   a  free  ride  (e.g.,  as  recently  discussed   by  Schoberth,  Heinzl,  &  Preece,  2006).   • Groupware  provides  an  archival   system  for  lesson  plans,  etc.   • Benefits  from  peer  feedback  are  more   likely  to  emerge  when  group   participants  are  provided  an   atmosphere  in  which  they  feel   comfortable;  electronic  responses   allow  for  decisions  that  are  less   emotionally  charged.   • Participants  express  their  secret   feelings  without  fear  of  

32  

 

Yin,  Lien,  &  Werner  

embarrassment,  thus  providing  a   more  even  rate  of  participation   among  members.   • A  group  support  system  (GSS)  is  fast,   and  immediate  feedback  is  available.   • Groupware  encourages  the  small   group  process;  participants  can   usually  recognize  the  improved   quality  of  decision  making  in  small   group  arrangements  versus  working   individually.       According  to  Perreault  and  Moses  (1992),   groupware  leads  to:   • increased  employee  cohesiveness,   • higher  morale,     • improved  organizational  image,  and   • reduced  travel  and  labor  costs.      

varied.  These  differences  may  be  attributed  to   lower  comfort  levels  and  unfamiliarity  with   groupware  technology.  As  acknowledged  by   the  authors,  “Additional  training  would  have   allowed  students  using  groupware  to  learn   such  techniques”  (Perreault  &  Moses,  1992,  p.   163).     Additional  training-­‐related  issues  are   present  in  this  example  due  to  the  fact  that   “other  students  noted  that  they  had  difficulty   sending,  receiving,  and  logging  into  the   groupware  system.  They  felt  they  could  have   accomplished  their  assigned  tasks  faster  if   they  had  been  able  to  meet  face-­‐to-­‐face”   (Perreault  &  Moses,  1992,  p.  163).  Guptill   (1992)  found  that  there  is  a  high  learning   curve,  and  it  takes  time  to  “get  up  to  speed  on   even  rudimentary  tasks”  (p.  50).  The  end   result  was  found  and  noted  in  students’   preference  for  face-­‐to-­‐face  meetings,  as  cited   by  Perreault  &  Moses  (1992,  p.  163).     Additionally,  Koenig  (2001)  observed  that   Knowledge  Management  (KM),  another  term   for  groupware,  is:       more  about  people  and  organizational   culture  than  technology…That   observation  is  translated  into  a   variety  of  prescriptive  forms—don’t   leave  KM  to  the  IT  folks,  don’t  assume   that  if  you  build  it  they  will  come,   recognize  the  importance  of  social   capital,  and  the  list  goes  on.    What  has   not  been  adequately  recognized,   however,  is  the  importance  of  user   education  and  training…technology  is   not  holding  organizations  back,  but  a   lack  of  strategy  and  a  failure  to  build   KM  in  the  organization’s  day-­‐to-­‐day   operations  and  its  culture  in  order  to   encourage  end-­‐user  buy-­‐in  (p.  24).     Koenig’s  (2001)  research  backs  up  these   assertions.  The  accounting  and  professional   services  firm  KPMG  analyzed  more  than  400   firms  in  its  biannual  study  of  the  status  of  KM,   “KM  2000.”  The  researchers  found  that  of  the   288  firms  that  had  KM  systems  in  place  or   were  setting  them  up,  benefits  failed  to  meet   expectations  in  137  cases  (48%).  Of  those  

Issues  and  Challenges     The  many  advantages  associated  with   groupware  do  not  come  without  potential   disadvantages.  Perreault  and  Moses  (1992)   compared  the  results  of  a  collaborative   writing  project  completed  by  students   utilizing  groupware  technology  to  the  results   of  other  students  who  utilized  face-­‐to-­‐face   meetings.  These  authors  presented  two  main   findings.  First,  the  overall  quality  and  time   required  to  complete  the  reports  did  not   differ  between  those  meeting  face  to  face  and   those  using  groupware.  Second,  on  review  of   student  perceptions  regarding  ease,  speed,   and  convenience,  students  favored  meeting   face  to  face  (Perreault  &  Moses,  1992,  p.  162).           Such  perceptions  stem  from  a  number  of   barriers  in  the  way  of  successful   implementation  and  acceptance  of   groupware.  They  include  inadequate  training,   lack  of  ready  access,  user  resistance,  absence   of  human  contact,  insufficient  infrastructures,   and  poor  learning  assuredness.  We  discuss   each  respectively.     1)  Inadequate  training.  Perreault  and   Moses  (1992)  found  that  even  though  there   were  no  differences  in  overall  quality  of  the   reports,  the  general  appearance  and  format  

Learning  in  Virtual  Groups  

288  firms,  127  were  still  in  the  process  of   setting  up  a  KM  system.  That  means  that  of   the  161  firms  with  KM  systems  in  place,  137   (85%)  reported  that  benefits  failed  to  meet   expectations  (Koenig,  2001,  p.  24).  When   participants  were  asked  why  they  thought  the   benefits  failed  to  meet  expectations,   inadequate  training  and  user  education  was   cited  by  53%  of  the  respondents  (Koenig,   2001).  This  is  obviously  an  area  where   training  and  development  professionals  need   to  work  in  concert  with  information   technology  professionals  to  craft  effective   training  solutions  (Noe,  2008).     2)  Lack  of  ready  access.  Students   involved  in  the  Koenig  (2001)  study  used  a   general  computer  lab  open  to  the  campus  to   complete  their  paper.  Many  students  noted   conflicts  between  lab  hours  and  their   personal  schedules.  As  a  result,  computer   availability  was  a  factor  working  against  the   use  of  groupware.  Perrault  and  Moses  (1992)   acknowledge  this  concern:  “Frustrations  of   this  type  could  have  been  avoided  if  students   had  ready  access  to  computer  labs  or  if  the   class  had  met  in  a  computer  lab”  (p.  163).       Another  issue  related  to  access  not  yet   found  in  the  research  is  access  to  home   computers.  Not  all  students  live  in  homes   with  personal  computers,  and  even  if  they  do,   scheduling  conflicts  with  other  family   members  may  severely  limit  their  ability  to   use  it.  Restricted  access  can  be  a  significant   impediment  to  online  learning  (James,  1997).   3)  User  resistance.  People  are  creatures   of  habit  and  typically  do  not  enjoy  change   (Bernerth,  2004).    Consequently,  working   with  the  unknown  often  rouses  discomfort.   Guptill  reinforces  this  relationship  with   regard  to  groupware:    “’The  most  formidable   task  for  implementing  groupware  is  the   uncertainty  potential  users  feel  about  the   systems’”  (cited  in  Perreault  &  Moses,  1992,   p.  155).       Saka  and  Shiigi  (1996)  note  the  same   phenomenon:  “Resistance  should  always  be   expected  when  people  are  forced  into   switching  products,  especially  when  it  means   a  change  of  vendors”  (p.  105).  They  also   reference  Orlikowski  (1992),  who  says,  

33

“’Individuals  facing  new  technology  have   difficulty  changing  their  framework  for   understanding  it  and  thus  have  difficulty   interacting  effectively  with  new  applications.   In  most  instances,  individuals  were  not  able   to  see  the  potential  benefits  of  work-­‐group   computing’”  (cited  in  Saka  &  Shiigi,  1996,  p.   105).   Potential  users  need  to  be  informed  of   what  groupware  is  and  what  it  can  do  for   them.  Christine  Bullen,  Assistant  Director  of   the  Center  for  Information  Systems  Research   at  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology,   asserts,  “’Education  is  key…Once  users   become  educated  about  groupware,  you’ll  see   a  real  change  in  the  way  people  work’”   (Perreault  &  Moses,  1992,  p.  155).   4)  Absence  of  human  contact.  Although   not  referenced  by  the  above  research,  human   contact  is  obviously  vitally  important.  The  use   of  groupware  lacks  the  richness  of  nonverbal   body  cues,  voice,  proximity,  and  touch,  all  of   which  are  important  in  a  learning   environment.  Thus,  implementing  groupware   is  not  as  effective  when  attempting  to   establish  rapport  and  relationships  within  a   group  (Farrell,  2000).       5)  Insufficient  infrastructures.  In  many   cases,  present  school  and  university   infrastructures  are  incapable  of  handling  the   latest  technology.  Since  schools  are  still   addressing  these  concerns,  the  time  frame  for   overcoming  the  problem  is  unclear.  Foshay   and  Bergeron  (2000)  note,  “The  network   infrastructures  we  have  in  the  real  world  of   schools  and  training  today  are  only  beginning   to  be  able  to  support  the  massive-­‐bandwidth,   high  reliability  applications  visionaries   describe  in  their  blue  sky  visions  of  a  cyber-­‐ future”  (p.16).   6)  Learning  assurances.  Foshay  and   Bergeron  (2000)  say  it  best:  “Putting  content   on  a  Web  page  is  no  guarantee  of  learning.     The  Web  may  be  a  great  way  to  distribute   information,  but  can  you  really  teach  with  it?   There  is  a  big  difference  between  information   and  instruction,  and  this  basic  principle  is  as   true  on  the  Web  as  anywhere”  (p.  16).  In   other  words,  it  is  not  simply  what  you  have,   but  how  you  use  it.  

34  

 

In  summary,  the  presence  of  a  high   learning  curve,  user  resistance,  and  training   needs  coupled  with  the  absence  of  ready   access,  human  contact,  learning  guarantees,   and  proper  network  infrastructure  support   represent  current  barriers  facing  the   successful  implementation  of  groupware.  We   now  shift  our  attention  to  the  recent  use  of   course  management  systems  in  electronic   learning  efforts.  

  From  Business  Groupware  to   Educational  Groupware      

The  primary  factors  that  affect  the  change   from  traditional  modes  of  instruction  to  that   of  technology-­‐based  instruction  involving   systems  such  as  groupware  revolve  around   the  environment  or  organizational  culture  in   which  the  transition  takes  place;   administrators  and  faculty  members  must   come  together  to  create  it  (Tham  &  Werner,   2004).  They  must  also  address  and  attempt  to   solve  issues  related  to  training,  access,   learning,  infrastructure,  user  resistance,  and   human  contact  to  ensure  a  successful   transition.   Technology  has  become  an  increasingly   important  element  of  business  and   educational  success.  For  example,  Duke   University’s  Fuqua  School  of  Business  offers   an  online  MBA  program  in  which  students   attend  CD-­‐ROM  video  lectures.    Supplemental   video  and  audio  programs  are  available  to   download,  and  lecture  discussions  are   facilitated  via  bulletin  boards,  e-­‐mail,  and  live   chat  rooms.    Additionally,  professors  send  out   interactive  aids  to  those  students  in  need  of   extra  assistance  (Bartlett,  1997).   Yet,  one  cannot  ignore  that  a  program   such  as  this  still  lacks  significant  face-­‐to-­‐face   correspondence.    Duke’s  program  recognizes   this,  however,  and  they  integrate  student   travel  to  the  campus  for  three-­‐week  and  two-­‐ week  visits  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the   program.  Students  also  go  on  mandatory  trips   to  Eastern  Europe,  China,  and  South  America   for  onsite  classes  and  meetings  with  local   business  owners.  The  philosophy  is  that  

Yin,  Lien,  &  Werner  

students  will  build  close  personal  ties  that   help  sustain  them.  “We’re  all  very,  very  close   friends,”  says  Duke  student,  Janet  Morgan   (Bartlett,  1997,  p.  77).     It  is  because  of  statements  like  this  that   in-­‐person  interaction  will  continue  to  play  a   significant  role  in  the  educational   transformation  are  currently  experiencing.   Such  interaction  will  also  represent  a  key   component  in  the  successful  transformation   to  technology-­‐supported  instruction.  We   argue  that  this  is  true,  even  if  the  perceived   value  of  the  human  element  has  often  been   overlooked,  forgotten,  or  severely   underestimated.  After  all,  the  most  essential   part  of  a  given  virtual  group  is  still  its  human   members.    With  the  above  research  findings   as  our  background,  we  asked  students  in  an   IT  Business  Technologies  class  for  their   perceptions  concerning  how  Blackboard,  as   an  example  of  an  educational  groupware,   affected  their  group  work  in  this  course.  

  An  Exploratory  Investigation  of  the   Blackboard  Educational  Groupware   Study  Design  and  Methodology     Blackboard  is  a  well-­‐known  example  of  a   course  management  system.  Adopted  by   many  universities  and  educational   institutions,  a  growing  number  of  post-­‐ secondary  educators  use  Blackboard  as  a   supplement  or  “course  portal”  to  their  classes   (Higher  Education,  2009;  Jones  &  Jones,   2008).  Participants  in  this  study  consisted  of   120  Masters  of  Business  Administration  and   Masters  of  Business  Education  students   enrolled  in  graduate  courses  at  a  Midwestern   university.  All  were  enrolled  in  a  traditional   MBA  Business  Technologies  course  taught  by   the  first  author.  They  had  become  familiar   with  Blackboard  from  experience  with  it  in   previous  hybrid  courses  (i.e.,  classroom   meetings  and  Web-­‐enhanced  activities)  for  at   least  one  semester.     We  used  a  three-­‐step  process  to  generate   the  data  and  derive  meaningful  findings.  First,   toward  the  end  of  the  semester,  we  asked   each  participant  to  list  five  aspects  of  

Learning  in  Virtual  Groups  

35

Blackboard  that  significantly  affected  the   teamwork  involved  in  the  Business   Technologies  training  course  they  were   taking.  We  summarized  11  of  the  entries   students  came  up  with  based  on  the   keywords  or  key  concepts  they  mentioned.   Those  11  emerging  entries  are  listed  in  Table   1.     Though  the  list  signifies  Blackboard’s   fundamental  strengths  in  enabling  individual   students’  virtual  learning,  we  were  more   interested  in  knowing  what  key  aspects  of   using  Blackboard  will  affect  group  work.    In   the  second  step,  we  used  a  Q-­‐sort   methodology  to  have  the  students  rank  those   11  emerging  aspects  that  had  the  greatest   effect  on  their  ability  to  work  as  a  team.  We   chose  the  Q  methodology  because  it  has  been   used  to  build  consensus  with  both  qualitative   and  quantitative  data  by  requiring   participants  to  perform  ranking  tasks   (Brown,  1996).  In  addition,  a  previous  study   employed  Q  methodology  to  identify  the  key   issues  in  information  systems  management   Table  1.  Emerging  Aspects  of  the  Use  of  Blackboard   with  Significant  Effects  on  a  Training  Course     Perceived  Key  Aspects  of  the      Effect  of  Using  Blackboard  

Counts   Percentage  

Learning  outcomes   107               Interaction/collaboration   103   Information/knowledge/content     94   storage   Information  sharing   90   Virtual  classroom   86   Productive/flexible  process   85   Secured  communication   82   Self-­‐paced  learning   68   Immediate  feedback  if  provided  by   53   the  instructor   Course-­‐wide   29   announcements/emails   Online  quizzes/tests      3        

center,  which  reflects  those  items  considered   neutral  compared  to  the  others.  A  positive   score  indicates  those  aspects  students   thought  would  most  likely  affect  their  group   work  in  this  class;  conversely,  a  negative   score  means  that  students  thought  this  aspect   was  less  likely  to  affect  their  group  work  in   the  course.   Figure  1.  Q-­‐sort  for  Emerging  Aspects  Affecting   Group  Work     -­‐2   -­‐1   0   +1   +2   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X       X         After  sorting  the  answers  of  120       participants   using  the  Q-­‐sort  ranking,  the  

scores  were  calculated  (see  Table  2).     Based  on  the  rankings,  six  items  received   positive  scores,  while  the  rest  drew  negative   scores.  In  order  to  gain  more  insight  as  to   why  the  students  perceived  those  six  aspects   with  higher  marks,  in  the  third  step,   participants  were  asked  to  specify  pros  and   cons  of  using  Blackboard  based  upon  the  six   emerging  aspects  that  scored  positively  in   Table  2.    The  qualitative  data  from  these   students  provided  a  foundation  for  the   following  synopsis.  

89%   86%   78%   75%   72%   71%   68%   57%   44%   24%      3%  

(Gottschalk,  2001).  Ranking  forces  all   participants  to  use  the  complete  scale,  as   evident  in  Figure  1,  where  the  11  emerging   aspects  were  allocated  to  11  available  spaces   from  +2  to  -­‐2  in  a  quasi-­‐normal  distribution.   Note  that  the  ranking  scale  used  in  Q   methodology  purposefully  sets  zero  at  the  

 

Table  2.  Ranking  of  Aspects  of  Blackboard  and   Their  Effects  on  a  Training  Course     Rank   Aspect  of  Blackboard  that   Score   Affects  Group  Work   1   Interaction/collaboration   1.56   2   Productive/flexible  process   1.30   3   Information/knowledge/   1.18   content  storage     4   Information  sharing   1.02   5   Learning  outcomes   0.67   6   Secured  communication   0.32   7   Course-­‐wide  announcements/   -­‐0.49   e-­‐mails   8   Immediate  feedback  if   -­‐0.73   provided  by  instructor     9   Virtual  Classroom   -­‐1.06   10   Self-­‐paced  learning   -­‐1.27   11   Online  quizzes/tests   -­‐1.64    

36  

 

Interaction/Collaboration     The  biggest  perceived  advantage  of   Blackboard  with  regard  to  interactive   communication  and  collaboration  is  the   discussion  board  feature.  One  participant   stated:       Through  the  Discussion  Boards,  the   professor  can  post  topics  to  elicit   collaborative  responses  from  teams.     We  can  read  other  students’   responses  and  find  out  what  other   students  are  thinking  and  reflecting.     If  each  student  were  to  write  a  paper   on  the  topic  and  turn  it  into  the   professor,  learning  would  only  occur   for  the  student  who  wrote  the  paper.     By  posting  responses  to  Blackboard,   the  other  collaborating  students  in  the   team  or  the  entire  class  can  learn  as   well.       Another  perceived  advantage  of   Blackboard  related  to  collaboration  is  its   ability  to  create  diverse  learning  groups.  Class   composition  is  often  based  upon  the  time  of   day  the  class  is  held.  One  participant   commented:     For  instance,  a  class  that  meets  at  10  a.m.   is  probably  going  to  be  comprised  of   traditional,  full-­‐time  students,  whereas  a   night  class  will  likely  have  more  students   who  work  full-­‐time  and  go  to  school  part-­‐ time.  Class  discussions  held  in  a  typical   class  would  often  be  very  different  for   these  two  groups,  because  the  individuals   in  the  groups  have  completely  different   points  of  reference.  Online  courses,  or   courses  that  utilize  discussion  boards,   expand  the  knowledge  base  of  the  group   because  the  members  are  more   heterogeneous.       However,  disadvantages  exist.  One   disadvantage  is  the  impersonal  nature  of  an   electronic  medium  versus  face-­‐to-­‐face   interaction.  Electronic  communication   necessitates  interpretation  of  the  written  

Yin,  Lien,  &  Werner  

word.    Sometimes  the  true  intent  of  an   individual  may  be  misinterpreted  because   nonverbal  communication  is  absent  (Farrell,   2000).  Additionally,  there  can  be  response   time  delays  as  a  result  of  server-­‐related   issues,      or  delays  could  be  a  result  of  students   not  checking  the  discussion  board  or  group   portal  frequently  enough.  As  indicated  by  one   participant,  “…if  a  group  of  students  were   having  a  face-­‐to-­‐face  discussion,  the   conversation  would  be  more  or  less   spontaneous  or  non-­‐stop.  With  Blackboard   discussion  boards,  time  usually  elapses   before  the  communicator  receives  feedback.”   Chat  rooms  could  solve  this  dilemma;   however,  a  chat  room  requires  a  mutually   agreed  upon  meeting  time.    

Productive/Flexible  Processes     According  to  another  participant,  a  second   key  advantage  of  Blackboard  is  that,   “…information  is  quickly  and  easily  available.   This  results  in  more  productive  and  flexible   use  of  time  because  we  will  not  be  wasting   our  time  by  accessing  centrally-­‐stored   information.”       In  addition  to  this  benefit  is  the  ability  to   conduct  meetings  with  people  in  various   locations.  Without  an  electronic  medium  such   as  Blackboard,  organizations  would  spend  a   large  amount  of  money  making  arrangements   for  everyone  to  meet  in  the  same  place.  As   noted  by  one  participant,  “Through  the  use  of   chat  rooms  and  discussion  boards,  the  need   to  meet  in  person  may  be  reduced.”     Instructors  and  trainers  who  use  the   software  can  be  more  productive  because   they  can  take  care  of  administrative  tasks,   such  as  posting  lecture  notes,  via  the  tool.  One   participant  stated,  “We  will  not  need  to   bother  instructors  to  ask  what  we  have   missed  in  class  because  we  will  know  to   check  Blackboard.  This  can  lead  to  increased   productivity.”  If  instructors  post  notes  on   Blackboard,  students  can  pay  attention  to  the   lecture  and  discussion  instead  of  worrying   about  writing  down  every  word  the   instructor  speaks.  

Learning  in  Virtual  Groups  

  In  order  for  Blackboard  to  be  successful,   however,  everyone  must  use  it.  If  students  do   not  check  for  announcements,  they  may  miss   out  on  important  information.  According  to   one  response,  “…if  a  student  has  technical   problems,  it  will  affect  his/her  ability  to  stay   abreast  of  the  latest  information  pertaining  to   class.  It  also  prevents  him/her  from  keeping   up  with  the  coursework  and  discussions,   which  may  negatively  affect  his/her  grade.”     Using  electronic  media  may  not  be   productive  for  every  student.  Some  students   may  have  disabilities  or  learning  situations   that  require  other  modes  of  communication.   They  can  avoid  this  problem  if  they  set  up  an   alternate  arrangement  in  advance  with  the   instructor.        

Information/Knowledge  Base/Content   Storage  

  Yet  another  major  advantage  participants   acknowledged  related  to  information  and   content  storage  was  the  existence  of  a   centralized  storage  place.  Without  a  CMS,   students  are  required  to  get  information  from   the  anonymous  FTP  server,  in  addition  to   information  held  on  reserve  at  the  library,   either  physically  or  electronically.  Blackboard   is  advantageous  in  that  it  enables  all  students   in  the  class  to  access  and  retrieve  important   class  documents  from  a  central  online   location  at  any  time.     An  additional  benefit  of  information   storage  participants  noted  was  students’   ability  to  access  information  and  upload  files   to  the  digital  drop  box  from  any  location.  One   commented:      I  love  the  digital  dropbox!    It  is  very   easy  and  convenient  to  upload  and   access  documents  on  Blackboard.  For   example,  if  a  student  needed  to  access   course  information  from  home,  s/he   could  accomplish  this  with   Blackboard  by  utilizing  any  computer   with  Internet  access  from  any   computer  that  was  on-­‐line.  The   students  do  not  need  to  be  on  campus  

37

to  obtain  information  or  submit  a  file   needed  for  completing  an  assignment.       Students  cited  still  more  advantages  of   Blackboard  and  its  information  storage   capacity.  They  liked  the  fact  that  it  was  real   time.  In  other  words,  “…as  soon  as  the   professor  posted  course-­‐related  information,   I  was  able  to  view  it.”  Blackboard  allows  for   round-­‐the-­‐clock  access,  seven  days  per  week.   Users  can  see  when  and  to  whom  messages   were  posted.       Although  using  Blackboard  certainly  has   advantages  for  information  storage,   participants  also  cited  disadvantages.  The   main  concern  was  storage  size.  Depending  on   the  size  of  the  server  hard  drive  space,  the   number  of  professors  posting  information  to   Blackboard,  and  document  size,  server  space   could  be  quickly  exhausted.       Since  the  information  is  held  online,  it  is   very  dependent  on  the  server.  As  indicated  by   one  participant,  “If  the  server  is  down  or  the   Web  site  is  not  working,  I  cannot  access   information  that  I  need.”    Furthermore,  if   students  do  not  have  a  computer  with   Internet  access,  they  will  be  required  to  find   one  that  does.  And  if  students  prefer  to  have   physical  copies  of  material,  they  will  need  to   print  out  the  information  and  incur  expenses   for  paper  and  ink.     Information  security  was  another  concern   raised  by  students.  Even  though  users  need  a   password  to  log  onto  Blackboard,  hackers   may  be  able  to  break  into  the  system  without   authorization.  Further,  as  one  student  noted,   “…because  it  is  so  easy  for  professors  to  post   information,  professors  may  not  be  very   selective  when  they  post  material.    They  may   post  more  information  than  students  can  deal   with,  which  can  lead  to  information   overload.”     Information  Sharing     A  platform  such  as  Blackboard  is  also   beneficial  because  it  enables  users  to  post   and  share  information  with  one  another   (Arbaugh  &  Benbunen-­‐Fich,  2007).  According  

38  

 

Yin,  Lien,  &  Werner  

to  a  student,  “…it  allows  us  to  exchange  files   within  our  group  and  with  other  groups.”   Students  can  broaden  their  horizons   because  they  can  see  how  other  students   respond  to  various  topics.  Communication   can  occur  on  a  one-­‐on-­‐one  basis,  small  group   basis,  and  whole-­‐group  basis,  and  the  chat   room  feature  allows  for  real-­‐time   communication.       But  Blackboard  also  has  its  disadvantages   as  an  information  sharing  source.  The  biggest   negative  cited  by  students  was  over-­‐sharing   of  information.  Some  students  felt  that  other   students  could  steal  ideas.  For  example,  one   participant  said,  “Sometimes  professors  will   post  discussion  board  questions.  We  are   required  to  respond  to  these  questions  based   on  research  we  complete.  Some  students   feared  that  fellow  students  were  not   completing  their  own  research,  but  rather   copying  other  students’  posted  work.”    

working  with  computers  for  the  first  time,   and  others  may  not  be  familiar  with   groupware  packages.     Secured  Communication     A  major  component  of  Blackboard’s  security   is  the  username  and  password  requirement.   This  prevents  unauthorized  users  from   accessing  confidential  information.  As  one   student  noted,  “…those  who  are  not  enrolled   in  a  course  during  a  specific  semester  do  not   have  access  to  the  information  related  to  that   course.”    Students  agreed  that  logging  onto   Blackboard  was  a  simple  process.  They  also   believed  that  the  security  measures  allowed   for  private  conversations  between  groups  of   students  and  professors.  Also,  professors  can   track  work  done  by  students  by  monitoring   login  records.   However,  many  students  were  not  so   confident  in  the  security  of  Blackboard.  One   major  problem  was  that  identities  can  be   stolen.  One  participant  indicated,  “The   username  for  accessing  Blackboard  for  us  is  a   combination  of  the  student’s  name  and   birthday.  The  initial  password  is  my  campus   identification  number.  Other  students  may  be   able  to  figure  these  usernames  and  numbers   out  from  other  sources.”   Another  concern  that  was  raised  had  to   do  with  plagiarism.  If  students  could  gain   access  to  the  network  through  Blackboard,   they  could  steal  test  documents  or  other   secure  information.  Students  who  share   passwords  with  others  could  be  submitting   work  that  is  not  truly  their  own.  Students   could  also  figure  out  how  to  alter  their  profile   and  “become”  someone  else.   Finally,  as  with  any  online  product,   Blackboard  could  be  affected  by  hackers.   People  who  want  to  destroy  or  alter  the   information  that  professors  post  to   Blackboard  could  do  so  if  they  gained  illegal   access  to  the  platform.    

Training/Learning  Outcomes  

  Blackboard  allows  students  to  learn  from   other  students.  One  commented,  “The  ability   to  look  at  how  a  peer  classmate  approaches  a   problem  or  situation  could  give  me  insight  as   how  to  more  effectively  structure  my   approach.”       The  environment  also  makes  it  easier  for   the  students  to  complete  group  work.  Many   times,  it  becomes  difficult  for  students  to  get   together  due  to  their  different  schedules  and   the  fact  that  not  all  of  them  live  on  campus.   Some  prefer  face-­‐to-­‐face  interaction  and   believe  using  Blackboard  takes  away  from  the   valuable  social  aspects  of  physically  getting   together  to  complete  group  work  (Tham  &   Werner,  2004).   One  recommendation  is  to  use   Blackboard  as  a  support  tool,  rather  than  a   replacement  tool.  This  way,  as  one  student   stated,  “…we  could  meet  as  a  group,  and  then   exchange  additional  documents  and  ideas   electronically  via  Blackboard.”  Another   recommendation  is  that  students  should  be   given  training  on  the  use  of  Blackboard.   Although  many  can  figure  it  out   independently,  some  students  may  be  

Conclusion     Subjects  in  our  study  initially  identified  11   areas  where  the  use  of  Blackboard  affected  

Learning  in  Virtual  Groups  

their  business  technologies  course.  When   they  were  then  asked  which  of  those  11   aspects  had  the  greatest  impact  on  their   group  work  in  the  class,  they  highlighted  six   aspects.  We  have  summarized  their   comments  and  concerns  regarding   interaction/collaboration,  productive/flexible   processes,  information  storage,  information   sharing,  learning  outcomes,  and  secured   communications.  Although  exploratory  in   nature,  we  feel  that  the  results  of  this   research  can  provide  useful  guidance  to  both   business  and  educational  applications  of   groupware  such  as  Blackboard.   We  predict  that  technology  enhanced,   group-­‐based  learning  will  continue  to   infiltrate  both  business  training  and   professional  education.  For  example,  based   on  a  survey  conducted  between  2006  and   2007,  the  U.S.  Department  of  Education   estimated  that  75%  of  all  two-­‐  and  four-­‐year   colleges  and  universities  in  the  United  States,   to  a  large  extent,  offer  some  form  of  distance   education  (National  Center  for  Education   Statistics,  2008).  Within  this  context,  course   management  system  software  such  as   Blackboard  and  Desire2Learn  are  already   very  popular  at  the  post-­‐secondary  level   (About  Us,  2009;  Higher  Education,  2009).   Some  of  this  popularity  is  a  direct  result  of   need.  Online  courses  require  a  platform   where  students  and  instructors  can  achieve   course  objectives  from  a  distance.  Software   packages  such  as  Blackboard  provide   students  a  means  of  communication  with  one   another,  the  ability  to  find  out  about   assignments,  submit  assignments,  and  check   their  grades.   These  software  packages  will  become   increasingly  important  for  professional   education  as  the  shift  from  traditional  face-­‐to-­‐ face  training  to  e-­‐learning  gains  popularity.   Increasingly,  virtual  classrooms  are  now  an   alternative  to  traditional  classrooms   (Arbaugh,  2000;  Arbaugh  &  Duray,  2002;   Clark  &  Kwinn,  2007).   Course  management  software,  as  with   any  software,  has  definite  advantages  and   disadvantages.  Corporations  and  universities   who  wish  to  embrace  these  new  technologies  

39

must  be  willing  to  put  the  time  and  resources   into  making  the  implementation  a  success   (Yee  Hsieh,  2004).  No  matter  how  many   “bells  and  whistles”  become  available  as  a   result  of  technology,  each  training  program   and  educational  institution  will  need  to  take  a   step  back  and  evaluate  whether  or  not  the   technology  is  really  enhancing  trainee  and   student  learning  (Brown,  2004;  Horton,  2005;   Noe,  2008).  Resources  are  typically  limited   within  a  given  timeframe;  therefore,  resource   allocation  decisions  must  be  thoroughly   planned  and  implemented  with  a  progressive   vision  to  develop  human  potential  (Rothwell   &  Kazanas,  2004).  As  previously  stated,  this  is   most  likely  to  occur  when  IT  and  training   professionals  work  together  to  address   critical  design,  implementation,  and   evaluation  issues  (Noe,  2008;  Werner  &   DeSimone,  2009).  This  is  a  critical  current   issue  for  management  education  and   development  (Horton,  2005;  West  et  al.,   2007).       Future  research  should  expand  upon  the   initial  results  presented  above  to  more   formally  describe  how  and  when  a  course   management  system  such  as  Blackboard  is  an   effective  tool  for  trainee/student  learning.     Identification  of  contextual  variables  that   affect  learning  outcomes  in  an  online   environment  is  still  another  area  for  research   development.  For  example,  might  student   responses  to  Blackboard  differ  if  this  research   was  replicated  in  a  course  that  was  not   focused  on  technology,  i.e.,  where  a  greater   proportion  of  students  were  not  “tech  savvy?”   Links  between  qualitative  responses,  such  as   those  in  this  study,  and  more  quantitative   learning  outcomes  are  also  needed  (Arbaugh   &  Benbunan-­‐Fich,  2007;  Clark  &  Kwinn,   2007).  Regardless  of  which  course   management  system  or  groupware  is  used,   issues  such  as  those  identified  in  this  article   must  be  addressed  in  order  to  achieve   positive  learning  outcomes  and  end-­‐user   satisfaction.  

 

40  

 

Yin,  Lien,  &  Werner  

Arbaugh,  J.  B.  (2000).  Virtual  classroom  versus   physical  classroom:  An  exploratory  study  of   class  discussion  patterns  and  student  learning   in  an  asynchronous  internet-­‐based  MBA   course.    Journal  of  Management  Education,   24(2),  213-­‐233.   Arbaugh,  J.,  &  Benbunan-­‐Fich,  R.  (2007).  The   importance  of  participant  interaction  in   online  environments.  Decision  Support   Systems,  43(3),  853-­‐865.   Arbaugh,  J.  B.,  &  Duray,  R.  (2002).  Technological   and  structural  characteristics,  student   learning  and  satisfaction  with  Web-­‐based   courses:  An  exploratory  study  of  two  on-­‐line   MBA  programs.  Management  Learning,  33(3),   331-­‐347.   Bartlett,  T.  (1997).  The  hottest  campus  on  the   Internet.  Business  Week,  3549,  77.   Bernerth,  J.  (2004).  Expanding  our  understanding   of  the  change  message.  Human  Resource   Development  Review,  3(1),  36-­‐52.   Blackboard  Inc.  (2009).  Higher  Education.   Retrieved  May  28,  2009,  from   http://www.blackboard.com/inpractice/high ered/   Brown,  K.  G.  (2004,  December).  Get  a  seat  at  the   table.  T&D,  58(12),  22-­‐25.   Brown,  S.  R.  (1996,  November).    Q  Methodology   and  qualitative  research.  Qualitative  Health   Research,  6(4),  561-­‐567.   Castells,  M.  (2001).  The  Internet  Galaxy.  London:   Oxford  University  Press.   Clark,  R.  C.,  &  Kwinn,  A.  (2007).  The  new  virtual   classroom:  Evidence-­‐based  guidelines  for   synchronous  e-­‐learning.  San  Francisco:   Pfeiffer.   Desire2Learn  Incorporated.  (2009).  About  Us.   Retrieved  May  28,  2009,  from   http://www.desire2learn.com/about/   Farrell,  J.  N.  (2000,  September).  Long  live  C-­‐ learning.  Training  &  Development,  54(9),  43-­‐ 46.   Foshay,  R.,  &  Bergeron,  C.  (2000).  Web-­‐based   education:  A  reality  check.  TechTrends,  44(5),   16-­‐19.   Gottschalk,  P.  (2001,  April-­‐June).  Key  issues  in  IS   management  in  Norway:  An  empirical  study   based  on  Q  Methodology.  Information   Resources  Management  Journal,  14(2),  37-­‐45.   Guptill,  B.  (1992,  April  20).  Vendors  face  high   hurdles  to  build  groupware  base.  Network   World,  9,  1,  41,  49-­‐50.  

Horton,  W.  (2005).  Evaluating  e-­‐learning.   Training,  42(9),  35-­‐39.     Hunt,  C.  S.,  &  Burford,  A.  M.  (1994,  February).  A   new  frontier  for  amplifying  creativity  and   collaborative  learning:  Group  support   systems.  Business  Education  Forum,  48(3)  31-­‐ 34.   James,  M.  L.  (1997).  Delivering  the  MBA  via  the   Internet:  Where  do  we  begin?  Academy  of   Educational  Leadership  Journal,  1,  41-­‐46.   Jones,  G.  H.,  &  Jones,  B.  H.  (2008).  Web-­‐based   course  management  software:  An  empirical   study  of  faculty  usage.  International  Journal  of   Instructional  Media,  35(3),  251-­‐260.   Koenig,  M.  (2001,  November/December).  User   education  for  KM:  The  problem  we  won’t   recognize.  KMWorld  Magazine,  10(10),  24-­‐26.   Lu,  L.-­‐C.,  &  Yeh,  C.-­‐L.  (2008).  Collaborative   e-­‐learning  using  semantic  course  blog.   International  Journal  of  Distance  Education   Technologies,  6(3),  85-­‐95.   McAteer,  P.  F.  (1994).  Harnessing  the  power  of   technology.  Training  &  Development,  48(8),   64-­‐68.   Munter,  M.  (1998).  Meeting  technology:  From  low-­‐ tech  to  high-­‐tech.  Business  Communication   Quarterly,  61(2),  80-­‐87.   Noe,  R.  A.  (2008).  Employee  training  and   development  (4th  ed.).  Boston:  McGraw-­‐Hill.   Parsad,  B.,  &  Lewis,  L.  (2008,  December).  Distance   education  at  degree-­‐granting  postsecondary   education  institutions:  2006-­‐2007  (National   Center  for  Education  Statistics  Rep.  No.  NCES   2009-­‐044).  Washington,  DC:  Institute  of   Education  Sciences,  U.S.  Department  of   Education.   Perreault,  H.  R.,  &  Moses,  D.  (1992).  A  comparison   of  face-­‐to-­‐face  and  groupware  meeting   approaches  on  a  collaborative  writing  project.   Remedial  &  Special  Education,  34(4),  151-­‐165.   Rothwell,  W.  J.,  &  Kazanas,  H.  C.  (2004).  The   strategic  development  of  talent  (2nd  ed.).   Amherst,  MA:  HRD  Press.   Saka,  T.,  &  Shiigi,  C.  (1996,  November).   Groupware:  Improving  group  communication   and  information  dissemination.  T.H.E.  Journal,   24(4),  101-­‐105.   Scalia,  L.  M.,  &  Sackmary,  B.  (1996).  Groupware  in   the  classroom:  Applications  and  guidelines.   Computers  in  the  Schools,  12(4),  39-­‐51.     Schoberth,  T.,  Heinzl,  A.,  &  Preece,  J.  (2006).   Exploring  communication  activities  in  online   communities:  A  longitudinal  analysis  in  the   financial  services  industry.  Journal  of  

References  

Learning  in  Virtual  Groups   Organizational  Computing  &  Electronic   Commerce,  16(3/4),  247-­‐265.   Tham,  C.  M.,  &  Werner,  J.  M.  (2004).  Designing  and   evaluating  e-­‐learning  in  higher  education:  A   review  and  recommendations.    Journal  of   Leadership  and  Organizational  Studies,  11(2),   15-­‐25.   Watts,  M.,  &  Greenlaw,  S.  A.  (1999).  Using   groupware  to  enhance  teaching  and  learning   in  undergraduate  economics.  Journal  of   Economic  Education,  30(1),  33-­‐42.   Werner.  J.  M.,  &  DeSimone,  R.  L.  (2009).  Human   resource  development  (5th  ed.).  Mason,  OH:   South-­‐Western,  a  part  of  Cengage  Learning.   West,  R.,  Waddoups,  G.,  &  Graham,  C.  (2007).   Understanding  the  experiences  of  instructors   as  they  adopt  a  course  management  system.   Educational  Technology  Research  &   Development,  55(1),  1-­‐26.   Wresch,  W.,  Arbaugh,  J.,  &  Rebstock,  M.  (2005).   International  online  management  education   courses:  A  study  of  participation  patterns.   Internet  &  Higher  Education,  8(2),  131-­‐144.   Yee  Hsieh,  P.  (2004,  March/April).  A  case  study.   TechTrends,  48(2),  60-­‐68  

41