Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE TRENDS
Because the experiment is based on a small number of participants, the conclusions are
limited. The first interesting result in this experiment is that the design of the system enables
in-depth discussion. This means that the lack of expressive richness can be surmounted by
an appropriate system of case discussion. In this experiment, traditional criticisms against
instant messaging did not arise. Most of the students did not complain about this point but
rather about the speed of the discussion. The second interesting result is that students do
not perceive significant differences between a traditional classroom case discussion and a
virtual one. This should lead many Web-based programs to enable such a pedagogical
method. Combining synchronous tools and asynchronous tools is likely to be the best way
to create an effective Web-based learning program. In this experiment, we observed that
students did not use the newsgroup dedicated to the case discussion as much as we might
have expected. Instead, they were focused on the on-line discussion. We suggest that further
experiments give a specific assignment to a group of students that will be posted in the
dedicated newsgroup. The other students should read the assignment before going into the
discussion. This approach will increase the use of the newsgroup. An increase in participa-
tion is also possible by asking a group of students to be the moderators of the discussion.
The professor in this new configuration is the only moderator. With such a system,
interactivity may be as great as it is in a classroom case discussion.
CONCLUSION
This experiment tested a system for on-line case discussion in an executive MBA
program. The system was successful with good student participation and a good level of
satisfaction by the students. In this experiment, we were concerned about whether we would
get the same interactions as we get in traditional classroom case discussion. The experiment
results suggest that students do not see much difference between on-line and classroom
discussions. Also suggested is that students do not change their attitudes when chatting,
which implies that the on-line interface is neutral for this type of executive student. What is
identified as an obstacle is the number of participants. Our group was large, making it difficult
for some students to express themselves and to follow the discussion. Another finding of
this experiment, which is consistent with the literature (Asensio , Hodgson, & Trehan, 2000;
Salmon, 2000), is the key role of the moderator in leading the participation.
REFERENCES
Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., & Trehan, K. (2000). Is there a difference: Contrasting experiences
of face to face and online learning. In M. Asensio et al. (eds.). (2000).
Networked
Learning
. Lancaster: Lancaster University & University of Sheffield.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of
information systems.
MIS Quarterly, (11)
, 3, 369-388.
Berge, Z. (1996). The role of the online facilitator/instructor. Available online: http://
star.ucc.nau.edu/ ~mauri /moderate /teach_on-line.html.
Berge, Z. (1998). Guiding principles in web-based instructional design.
Education Media
International, (35)
, 2, 72-86.
