Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
period (Q15). Students also felt comfortable with technical aspects of the discussion (Q4).
However, they said it was not easy to follow the discussions (Q11). This might be explained
by the fact that during this experiment, the average number of participants was about 20
students.
Handling 20 students in an on-line discussion is difficult; it is the role of the professor
to encourage discussion and make sure all students participate. Participation is highly related
to the intervention style of the teacher (Erskine, Leenders, & Maufette-Lendeers, 1981). Most
students agreed that the professor in the course intervened appropriately during the on-line
discussion (Q24). This result is consistent with former research on intervention in a virtual
classroom that pointed to the fact that intervention is a key success factor (Berge, 1996;
Salmon, 2000). On-line discussion is not as easy to control, however. We observed some
students who logged in but just “listened” to the on-line discussion and did not participate.
The number of participants is an obstacle to focused discussion, even though we divided
the case discussion into four main questions.
Nature of On-line Discussion
The case discussion lasted four sessions of 45 minutes each for a total of three hours.
This duration enabled more time than we usually have in a classroom. Three hours of
discussion enabled the students to discuss details and to go into deep analysis of problems
embedded in the case. The students felt that the discussion was more in-depth on-line and
that many more aspects of the case were discussed (Q18). We also asked if the on-line
interface made it easier for the student to give a personal opinion without the presence of
group pressure (Booher & Seiler, 1982). Students felt that there was little change from
classroom discussion in this regard (Q20). Students felt, however, that the direction of the
discussion changed; they had more exchange between participants on-line than in a
traditional classroom discussion (Q26), and these exchanges were more direct (Q21). We also
evaluated if on-line discussion was more focused than in a classroom, where sometimes
students forget the initial question. Participants did not think on-line discussion was more
focused than in traditional classroom discussion (Q23). In addition, students did not think
they got more from the on-line discussion than from a classroom discussion (Q29). In
conclusion, students did not perceive real differences with traditional case discussion. This
result is consistent with former research on differences between group discussions and
groupware discussions (Tyran, 1997; Tyran & Shepherd, 2001).
Student Satisfaction
The overall satisfaction of the students was high (average 7.14 on a 1 to 10 scale). This
satisfaction may be related to learning a new way of interacting rather than to the efficiency
of the system. Students were asked about whether on-line case discussion is more efficient
than traditional discussion and their response was neutral (Q28). This is consistent with
Wheeler's (1997) research. The results of his study showed no significant differences in the
performance of the learning process between traditional teaching and groupware-based
teaching. Asked if they participated more on-line than in a traditional case discussion,
students answered negatively (Q13). What is also noticeable is the fact that few students use
the newsgroup before or after the on-line discussion (Q9). The qualitative answers provided
additional confirmation of the answers to the questions in the questionnaire.
