Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 1. Results of the satisfaction questionnaire
Mean
Q4
- The technical system is satisfactory.
3.96
Q5
- The objective of each discussion session is known in advance.
4.36
Q6
- The duration of the on-line sessions is sufficient.
4.36
Q7
- During the sessions, I actively participated in discussion.
3.39
Q8
- I prepared the sessions.
4.07
Q9
- I used the newsgroup before and after discussions.
2.89
Q10
- Overall, on-line discussions were as thorough as classical sessions.
2.75
Q11
- It is easy to follow conversation during chat.
2.68
Q12
- It is easy to express myself during discussions.
3.43
Q13
- I express myself better during chat than during class sessions.
2.32
Q14
- It is easy for me to express myself in a concise fashion during discussions.
3.50
Q15
- I am capable of handling online discussion.
4.54
Q16
- The division of cases into four sessions facilitated discussion.
3.89
Q17
- The case discussions were longer than during a classical session.
3.68
Q18
- Each question was treated in more depth than would be during classical
sessions.
3.00
Q19
- I can more easily express myself in these sessions than during classical
sessions.
2.65
Q20
- I give my own opinions more easily.
2.67
Q21
- The exchanges are more direct.
3.32
Q22
- The discussions focus rapidly on essentials.
2.93
Q23
- There was less digression than during discussions in a classical session.
2.54
Q24
- The interventions of the professor permitted more lively discussion.
4.39
Q25
- The interventions of the professor refocused the discussion.
4.36
Q26
- There were more exchanges between students than between students and the
professor.
3.64
Q27
- Overall, I appreciate on-line case discussion.
3.93
Q28
- On-line case discussion is more efficient than classical sessions.
2.54
Q29
- I get more from on-line discussion than from classical sessions.
2.54
Mellar, 1996; Walsh et al., 1996). We also asked if it was easy for the student to give personal
opinions in the discussion. Finally, we asked students whether their participation was higher
than in classroom case discussion.
The average rate of participation was 70%. Nonparticipation might be explained by the
nature of the students (executive) and the scheduled time of the discussions (9:00 PM). The
length of the session (45 minutes) was enough for most of the participants (Q6).
Students said that they were active in discussion (Q7). This response is consistent with
what we observed during the on-line sessions and with the fact that students prepared the
session (Q8). The ability to handle on-line discussion is a critical point in participation.
Students felt that they had the ability to handle on-line case discussion after the training
