Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings.

Although collaborative learning techniques have been shown to enhance the learning experience, it is difficult to incorporate these concepts into courses without requiring students to collaborate outside of class. There is an ever increasing number of nontraditional university students who find it difficult to schedule the necessary meetings with team members to accomplish collaborative tasks. This empirical study explored the impact on nontraditional students of using asynchronous conferencing technology to complete collaborative teamwork. Following a repeated-measures experimental design, each student team collaborated on two assignments, one using face-to-face collaboration and the other using asynchronous computer conferencing technology for collaboration. Empirical findings indicate that, although students in both treatments were equally satisfied with the quality of the collaborative solution that they produced, students were more satisfied with the face-to-face collaboration process. Preex-periment att itudes toward collaboration were successful in predicting student satisfaction with the face-to-face collaboration process, but not the asynchronous process. Compared to women, men were more comfortable with the concept of collaborative team assignments. However, women were more satisfied with asynchronous collaboration compared to men.

**********

New technologies, a major interest in benefits derived from active learning, and a budget conscious public have led to significant changes in education. It is interesting to see the changing roles of students who are being encouraged to take control over learning experiences, become seekers of knowledge rather than recipients, and be actively involved in the educational process. Referred to as active learning, the paradigm described is not particularly new and has many advocates (Alavi, Wheeler, & Valacich, 1995).

Collaborative learning emerges from active learning as a method that develops critical thinking and problem-solving skills, both areas of weakness in educational environments (Bok, 1986; Boyer, 1987). Collaboration is said to occur when individuals interact with others and exercise, verify, solidify, and improve mental models through both discussion and information sharing (Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995). Traditionally, collaboration has occurred between face-to-face, synchronous groups of students. With telecommunications technology, collaborative experiences can now include anytime/anyplace, asynchronous learning experiences.

Using telecommunications technology can enable students to collaborate on course assignments and projects outside of class, without having to meet face-to-face. This asynchronous learning environment seems to be an especially good match with the profile of many college students. As of 1993, nearly 25% of all college students had full-time jobs. As of 1995, 44% of students were at least 25 years old, 54% were working either full or part-time, and 43% were attending school on a part-time basis. Today, less than one out of six undergraduates can be considered a traditional college student-one who is between the ages of 18 and 22, attends school on a full-time basis, and lives on-campus (Levine & Cureton, 1998; US Department of Education, 1996, 1997). Additionally, all part-time graduate students also fit the profile of the nontraditional student.

Although advocates tout the benefits of using telecommunications technology to enhance the educational experience, there is a paucity of empirical evidence to support their claims. Thus, there is a need to devise research projects that will measure specific aspects of telecommunications technology applied to a particular educational experience. Fabos and Young (1999), in an extensive critique of the use of telecommunications in primary and secondary education to conduct "projects" with other schools, advised that educators

need to extend the discussion of telecommunication exchange projects from overgeneralized and often nebulous claims about skill benefits, and focus on the content of particular projects, why they hold promise, and how they can be used to meet specific educational goals. (p. 249)

The empirical study reported herein explores the fit between asynchronous electronic collaboration and the experiences of nontraditional students, both undergraduate and graduate. The portrayal of asynchronous collaboration in this study is different from the distance learning application that is sometimes referred to as a "virtual classroom" (Hiltz, 1994). It is also different from research regarding the electronic classroom where technology supports students working face-to-face in a synchronous manner (Alavi, 1994; Alavi, Wheeler, & Valacich, 1995; Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1993). In the context of this experiment, students met during regularly scheduled classes and computer conferencing was used to continue collaboration outside of class.

Before employing asynchronous collaboration to accommodate the circumstances of a nontraditional student population, certain questions should be answered. For instance, do college students learn as well in an asynchronous environment? The answer may be yes, as several researchers (Hiltz, 1994; Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; Hiltz & Wellman 1997) have reported no differences in learning between students collaborating face-to-face versus asynchronously. However, many other questions merit consideration, such as:

* Do students prefer one form of collaboration over another?

* Do students' attitudes toward collaboration impact their perceptions of the (face-to-face or asynchronous) collaborative experience?

* Are certain student characteristics associated with preferences toward either mode of collaboration?

This study seeks to add to research in these areas. The effectiveness of both face-to-face and asynchronous modes of collaboration, with respect to satisfaction with the collaborative experience, is measured in terms of student perceptions, student attitudes and, student background variables. The aforementioned questions are addressed within a context where the majority of students are nontraditional.

This article is organized as follows. Background on collaborative learning and asynchronous computer conferencing is discussed followed by the development of hypotheses. The experimental design and research model is presented. The results are presented, followed by the discussion of results and conclusions.

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Collaborative learning encompasses numerous attributes associated with effective learning-namely team problem solving in an active and cooperative learning environment (Alavi, 1994). A growing body of literature provides support for collaborative learning experiences. For instance, both high and low achievers in collaborative learning teams outperform their counterparts in individual-learning environments (Singhanayak & Hooper, 1998). In a collaborative environment the role of an instructor shifts from one of dominance to that of facilitation with the intent of increasing student interaction (Karp & Yoels, 1983; Alavi, 1994). The social nature of collaborative techniques (Alavi, 1994; Bruffee, 1982; Green & Taber, 1980), involvement of students (Alavi, 1994) and talking among participants (Bruffee, 1982) have all been supported as being beneficial to students.

Through articulation, learners build and modify existing knowledge structures (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995). Collaboration encourages student feedback that results in both clarification and change (Alavi, 1994). Also, people seem more responsive to change and become innovators of change (Schon, 1983). Overall, collaborative methods have been found to be effective in promoting learning (Slavin, Sharon, Kagan, Hertz, Webb, & Schmuck, 1985) as well as enhancing student satisfaction with the entire learning process (Bligh, 1972).

COMPUTER CONFERENCING

A relatively recent use of technology is to facilitate collaboration. Computer conferencing is a form of online communication, whereby team discussion and interaction occurs electronically using specialized software and communication networks (Waggoner, 1992). Computer conferencing supports an asynchronous form of collaboration, often referred to as the "virtual classroom," where students keyboard comments and respond to team members' comments outside of class and at their own convenience (Hiltz, 1986). Thus, asynchronous computer conferencing supports anytime/anyplace collaboration.

There are various benefits associated with asynchronous collaboration. Hiltz finds that, when it works well, the "virtual classroom" model of interaction leads to greater communication among a learning group (Hiltz, 1994). Collaboration through computer conferencing can facilitate the extension of concepts beyond the typical classroom, offering unique opportunities for students to be part of a community of practice (Bank, Appleman, & Hay, 1996). Morrison (1992) viewed computer conferencing as a means of providing a forum for students who may ordinarily refrain from discussion. The technology facilitates the debate of issues, clarification of concepts, and the asking of questions as part of a collaborative community. As pointed out by Austin (1997), the asynchronous nature of conferencing promotes reflection and deliberation that are a part of critical thinking. Computer conferencing teams have been found to be more creative and produce higher quality results than traditional face-to-face teams (Ocker & Fjerme stad, 1998; Ocker, Hiltz, Turoff, & Fjermestad, 1995, 1996).

Since conferencing is a form of text-based communication, students must verbalize all aspects of interaction. This can enhance such metacognitive skills as self-reflection and revision in learning (Harasim, 1990). Students concentrate on the message rather than the presenter (Harasim, 1987) and, consequently, technology becomes an "equalizer" of persons (Berge & Collins, 1993).

There are also drawbacks associated with collaborating by way of computer conferencing. Due to asynchronicity, coordination can be difficult as group members must agree on how frequently to communicate (Abrami & Bures, 1996). The relative anonymity of conferencing can result in some team members exerting less effort (Abrami & Bures, 1996). Lurking can occur, whereby group members read the electronic discussions, but do not contribute (Hiltz, 1994). The lack of non-verbal cues may diminish "social presence" (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976), resulting in a sense of depersonalization (Hiltz, 1986). Additionally, some students dislike the text-based nature of conferencing because of the increased time it takes to type messages and read other people's messages (Eastmond, 1995). Berge and Collins (1993) reviewed limitations that include increased learning curves, online access requirements, and hardware constraints.

HYPOTHESES

Based on the results of the few existing experimental studies comparing asynchronous to face-to-face collaborative learning environments, hypotheses are developed concerning the impact of collaboration mode on the resulting student perceptions regarding satisfaction with the outcome and the process. Additionally, we speculate on how students' attitudes toward collaboration and student background variables, moderated by the mode of collaboration, impact student perceptions regarding satisfaction.

Satisfaction

Educators have long observed that problem solving is both a meaningful and important type of learning and thinking (Jonassen, 1997). The process of problem solving is multi-faceted and generally divided into two categories: process and outcome. Viewing the problem-solving process as being equal in importance to the outcome, Green and Taber (1980) advocated a need to understand both aspects.

Process Satisfaction

Process satisfaction refers to a subject's satisfaction with the process (face-to-face or asynchronous) used to collaborate. In an extensive review of empirical studies including asynchronous experiments, Fjermestad and Hiltz (1999) found that, overall, users collaborating asynchronously are less satisfied with the collaborative process than when working face-to-face. Straus and McGrath (1994) explained that

Feelings of depersonalization and a corresponding lack of focus on expressive issues may account for lower levels of satisfaction...other factors that might contribute include greater time pressure because of the effort required to communicate by typing and reading (Arunachalam, 1991; Daly, 1993) and difficulties in understanding others' contributions and in being understood by others. Frustrations are expected to be particularly high when the work requires reaching consensus and when such consensus involves resolving different viewpoints or interests (p. 90).

Within the educational realm, Benbunan-Fich and Hiltz (1999) and Warkentin, Sayeed, and Hightower (1997) measured process satisfaction and found that face-to-face teams were significantly more satisfied with the team collaboration process than were computer conferencing teams. Based on these previous findings, we hypothesized that:

Memo

H1. Face-to-face teams will be more satisfied with the team collaboration process than computer conferencing teams.

Another measure of the team collaboration process is students' perception of the quality of discussions that occurred using the collaboration medium. This measure is similar to the process satisfaction measure in that both refer to aspects of the collaboration process. The Benbunan-Fich and Hiltz (1999) study is the only one to measure this variable. They found that face-to-face teams had significantly better perceptions of discussion quality compared to asynchronous computer conferencing teams. Based on this single study, and the results of the studies measuring process satisfaction, we hypothesize that:

H2. Face-to-face teams will have more positive perceptions of discussion quality than computer conferencing teams.

Solution Satisfaction

Solution satisfaction refers to a subject's satisfaction with the solution (e.g., project, report, problem solution) that resulted from the collaborative experience. Unlike process satisfaction, in general, research comparing computer conferencing to face-to-face communication suggests that little or no difference exists concerning subjects' satisfaction with the outcome produced (Fjermestad & Hiltz, 1999). However, this finding appears to have mixed results in the educational environment. Although Warkentim, Sayeed and Hightower (1997) found that face-to-face teams were more satisfied than computer conferencing teams, Benbunan-Fich and Hiltz (1999) found no significant differences in solution satisfaction. Based on the findings of Fjermestad and Hiltz (1999) and Benbunan-Fich and Hiltz, we hypothesize that:

H3. There will be no difference, in terms of solution satisfaction, between computer conferencing and face-to-face teams.

Pre-Experiment Variables

Attitudes. Attitudes are the core of our likes and dislikes (Zimbardo, Ebbesen, & Maslach, 1977) and can impact the problem solving process (Jonassen, 1997). Biner, Summers, Dean, Bink, Anderson, and Gelder (1996) advocate student attitudes as representing an important criterion by which to gauge effectiveness. The need to explore attitudes and opinions when implementing technology is suggested by various researchers (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Zoltan & Chapanis, 1982). Some psychologists believe that specific attitudes will lead to predictable behavior (Fishbein, 1967).

As educators and facilitators of the collaborative learning experience, it would be helpful to have a gauge of student attitudes toward collaboration and how these attitudes might impact students' perceptions of the learning experience, whether it is implemented in a face-to-face or asynchronous manner. Students typically have years of experience learning in the traditional face-to-face, lecture-based learning environment, and much less experience collaborating in teams. Therefore, when asked about their attitudes toward collaboration, we speculate that student answers are based on their face-to-face collaboration experiences rather than asynchronous, computer conferencing collaboration. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H4. Pre-experiment attitudes toward collaboration of face-to-face teams will be positively related to the satisfaction of face-to-face teams.

RESEARCH METHOD

Design. This experiment uses a single factor, counter-balanced, repeated measures design (Table 1). The factor, collaborative process, has two treatments: (a) face-to-face collaboration with no technology support and (b) asynchronous computer conferencing. Students in two sections of two courses participated in this study.

As depicted in Figure 1, this study examines student satisfaction with the collaborative process and satisfaction with the resulting solution. It also explores if and how preexperimental attitudes and student characteristics are associated with the face-to-face or computer conferencing collaboration modes.

Subjects. A total of 74 students completed the experiment. Thirty-four were enrolled in either of two sections of a required object oriented programming course for information systems (IS) undergraduates and IS graduate students, while 43 were enrolled in either of two sections of a core information systems course required of all MBA and MS/IS graduate students.

Table 2 contains the background characteristics of these students as shown by actual numbers and percents, broken down by course. All participants were either in the last two years of undergraduate study or engaged in graduate work. This suggests a very mature population. Nearly 75% of the students completed one or more programming courses. A prerequisite for all participating students was knowledge of microcomputer applications. As a result, all students had a comfortable level of computer-related skills. There was approximately a 60% to 40% split of males to females.

Both sections of each respective course were taught by the same instructor. Subjects received course credit for their participation in each collaborative assignment. Team size ranged from four to five students. Students were assigned to teams near the beginning of the semester and all teams were in existence for the entire semester. Thus, team members had some experience working together prior to the experiment and the expectation that they would continue to work with their team after the completion of the experiment. Efforts were made to balance teams based on subjects' educational background, work experience, and computer experience. Therefore, within each team, there was a variety of backgrounds and experience, both educationally and skill-wise.

Collaborative assignments. Each team in the graduate IS course analyzed two Harvard Business School case studies and produced a written report for each case that contained an analysis of the case along with recommendations. General guidelines for the case write-up were provided.

For each programming assignment, teams had to discuss the requirements of a somewhat complex problem and reach consensus on an appropriate way to solve the problem. Then, the teams had to program a solution using C++.

Technology and facilitation. The computer conferencing groups collaborated using the FirstClass computer conferencing system. Each computer conferencing group communicated in its own conference set up on FirstClass. The conferences were minimally facilitated. The conference facilitator's role was that of a technical assistant, helping groups with equipment problems and answering questions of a technical nature.

Procedures. Prior to the start of the experiment, all subjects attended an "information" lecture that described aspects of the experiment including collaborative learning concepts, the use of computer conferencing to accomplish teamwork, and the experimental tasks. No mention was made of the research questions or dependent variables.

All teams in the face-to-face treatment met twice during class time. The first meeting occurred at the start of the experiment; the second meeting occurred at the midpoint of the experimental period, exactly one week after the initial meeting. Each meeting was completed within 1 1/4 hours. Face-to-face teams were permitted to meet outside of these two scheduled meetings.

Similar to the face-to-face treatment, computer conferencing teams had an initial meeting in class, which lasted up to 1 1/4 hours. However, this was the only face-to-face meeting permitted. For two weeks immediately following the initial meeting, teams in the computer conferencing treatment collaborated asynchronously using the FirstClass computer conferencing system.

Debriefing. All teams were debriefed after the end of the second two-week experimental session, where the research questions and the experimental design were explained. All student questions regarding experimental design and method were answered.

Measures of preexperiment variables. A survey instrument administered prior to the start of the experiment was designed to collect data concerning student characteristics such as age, gender, student type (graduate, undergraduate), and computer literacy (see Table 2). This same instrument also was used to collect data regarding student attitudes toward collaboration. To measure these attitudes, a scale was developed to assess attitudes toward collaboration that included four items concerning (a) the value of team collaboration, (b) the effectiveness of tasks accomplished through collaborative efforts, (c) the effectiveness of peer evaluation, and (d) the comfort level working within groups (see the Appendix for scale items). This scale underwent evaluation by expert colleagues for content and its ability to capture attitudes toward collaboration.

Measures of postexperiment variables. Self-report data regarding satisfaction with the teams' solution (i.e., program, case study), satisfaction with the process used to reach a solution, and perceptions regarding team discussion quality were collected by way ofa questionnaire administered to subjects after the completion of each collaborative experience. Solution satisfaction and process satisfaction were each measured using a five-item scale that was developed by Green and Taber (1980). Perceptions regarding discussion quality were measured using a seven-question scale that was developed by Gouran, Brown, and Henry (1978). The appendix contains these survey items arranged according to the scale. The survey instrument is also included in its entirety.

RESULTS

Sample

To combine the data from the programming and graduate courses for purposes of analysis, student perceptions in each courses cannot be significantly different. T-tests were run to test for significant differences in subjects' attitudes toward collaboration and also the outcome variables. The results of the t-tests show that there were no differences between the two courses concerning attitudes toward collaboration, satisfaction with face-to-face collaboration, and satisfaction with asynchronous computer conferencing collaboration. Thus, based on this analysis, the data from both courses were combined into a single dataset for purposes of analysis.

Scales

Four scales were used to collect data: (a) the attitude scale, (b) the process satisfaction scale, (c) the solution satisfaction scale, and (d) the perceived quality of discussion scale. The second author developed the attitude scale.

The reliability of each scale was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. The alpha of the attitude scale was .74. The alpha of the process satisfaction scale was .91, while the alpha for the solution satisfaction scale was .75. Thus, these scales had acceptable reliability scores (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984). However, the alpha for the perceived quality of discussion scale was very low--.24. Upon further examination, there were two scale items that were causing the low alpha. These items were 2 and 6 in the perceived quality scale (see the appendix). When these items were dropped from the scale, the reliability increased to .88. Thus, the new perceived quality of discussion scale consisted of five items (1, 3, 4, 5, and 7).

Tests of Significance

Paired t-tests were run to test for significant differences between the face-to-face and computer conferencing treatments for the outcome variables. Table 3 contains a summary of these results.

Process satisfaction measure. Process satisfaction scores could range from one (low) to five (high). As expected, when collaborating face-to-face, subjects were more satisfied with the collaboration process than when using computer conferencing collaboration (4.1 vs. 3.8, p = .006). Thus, hypothesis H1 was supported.

Discussion quality measure. Perceived discussion quality scores could range from one (low) to five (high). Subjects collaborating face-to-face were more satisfied with the discussion quality than when collaborating asynchronously (4.1 vs. 3.8, p = .002). Therefore, hypothesis H2 was supported.

Solution satisfaction measure. Solution satisfaction scores could range from a one (low) to five (high). There was no significant difference between the ratings of subjects when collaborating face-to-face vs. computer conferencing (4.07 vs. 3.9, p = .l6), providing support for hypothesis H3.

Correlation analysis. A correlation analysis was conducted to assess the degree of association between preexperiment collaborative attitudes and the outcome variables. As shown in Table 4, collaborative attitudes were positively and significantly associated with process satisfaction (.375), solution satisfaction (.428), and perceived quality of discussion (.232) for face-to-face collaboration only. Thus, hypothesis H4 was supported.

Although the researchers did not specifically hypothesize about any relationships between student background characteristics (i.e., age, computer literacy, and gender), collaborative attitudes, and satisfaction, they were interested in uncovering any relationships. A correlation analysis was performed between these variables. A positive correlation was found between gender and the level of comfort working in groups (.249), indicating that men were more comfortable than women. A negative relationship was found between gender and the process of collaborating using computer conferencing (-.208), indicating that women were more comfortable collaborating by way of asynchronous means. Both of these correlations were significant at the .05 level.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This empirical study focused on comparing the effectiveness of asynchronous collaboration compared to face-to-face collaboration. Students from two courses in IS collaborated in both face-to-face and computer conferencing environments. Student teams worked in each environment for two weeks to complete either a collaborative programming assignment or a case study analysis. Student perceptions regarding satisfaction with the collaborative experience were investigated along with preexperimental attitudes toward collaboration. Table 5 contains a summary of the findings for each hypothesis related to student attitudes and perceptions concerning collaboration. Although no hypotheses were formulated specifically about student background characteristics, these factors were also examined.

Is there a relationship between students' preexperimental attitudes toward collaboration and students' satisfaction with the face-to-face or asynchronous collaboration process? The data show a significant relationship between collaboration attitudes and the resulting satisfaction with the collaborative process in the face-to-face mode only. No such relationship exists in the asynchronous environment. Thus, in this study, the collaborative attitude scale was a good predictor of face-to-face satisfaction levels. This result has face validity as we speculate that when students answered the attitude questions, they had previous face-to-face collaboration experiences in mind.

Knowing students' attitudes towards collaboration can be beneficial. For example, educators can balance the composition of teams, so that teams do not consist of a majority of members with negative attitudes toward collaboration. In this way, educators can perhaps increase the likelihood of success with face-to-face collaboration. However, the attitude scale was a poor indicator of student satisfaction using asynchronous collaboration. The scale did not capture the differences in attitudes between the two collaboration modes. A more comprehensive and sensitive instrument should be developed that encompasses attitudes towards both forms of collaboration.

Are certain student characteristics associated with preferences toward either mode of collaboration? An intriguing aspect of this study is that neither the student level (graduate or undergraduate), the level of computer literacy, nor the type of course had any relationship with the satisfaction variables in the face-to-face or asynchronous environments. Thus, collaboration was equally satisfying to both undergraduate and graduate students, programming and non-programming students, and students with modest or abundant computer experience. These findings suggest that both face-to-face and asynchronous collaboration can work well in variety of academic environments.

Some differences were associated with gender. Women were less comfortable with collaborative learning than were men. Given that women are an ever-increasing part of the student body, and that team collaboration is on the rise in the workplace, we need to consider ways in which to increase the comfort level of women. One way might be to educate students (both male and female) and instructors concerning this difference. Another method is to provide specialized training to each group, such as assertiveness training for women, sensitivity training for men, and instruction for professors on gender issues related to collaboration.

Interestingly, women were more satisfied using asynchronous computer conferencing for collaboration compared to men. This finding should be explored to determine what aspects of asynchronous collaboration account for these differences. It should be noted that research shows there to be more equal participation within teams that collaborate asynchronously. Perhaps this is a good starting place for an investigation of this finding.

In terms of student satisfaction, is asynchronous collaboration an effective substitute for face-to-face collaboration? Clearly, our data indicate that students prefer to collaborate in the traditional face-to-face manner. Students reported enjoying collaborating more in the face-to-face mode compared to the asynchronous mode and reported that their face-to-face discussions were of higher quality than their asynchronous discussions. Although when working asynchronously, students were just as satisfied with the end-product (i.e., program, case analysis) as when working face-to-face, they were significantly less satisfied with the asynchronous form of team collaboration. This finding is consistently supported in the general literature on computer-mediated communication (Fjermestad & Hiltz, 1999). These results occurred even though asynchronous teams had an initial face-to-face meeting where they could plan and organize their team--tasks often difficult to conduct efficiently in an asynchronous environment (Gale gher, 1990; Zack, 1993).

How can students' satisfaction with asynchronous team collaboration be increased? One clear way is to increase their exposure to the use of asynchronous technologies for collaborative tasks. Although students in this experiment were exposed to the computer conferencing technology throughout the semester, they did not use it to complete collaborative assignments prior to the experiment. Rather, it was used as an electronic bulletin-board. Students commented regarding this, making statements such as "Perhaps a small assignment weeks before the 'big' project on FirstClass would help us feel more comfortable and get us over the 'get familiar' phase."

Another possibility is to better educate students about the benefits of asynchronous collaboration. Although we presented an information session prior to the start of the experiment describing computer conferencing, we did not stress the positive (or negative) aspects, so as not to confound experimental results. However, in a nonexperimental setting, we can work to "retrain" the thinking of students in this area by providing students with more electronic collaborative experiences and incorporating the use of computer conferencing throughout our courses.

There is a learning curve associated with assimilating new technologies and computer conferencing collaboration is no different. Only after students become accustomed to this new form of collaboration can we view data regarding students' perceptions with any degree of confidence. In spite of being less satisfied with the team collaboration process, students generally felt that asynchronous collaboration was beneficial. In response to the question, "Overall, did you find that using the FirstClass computer conferencing system was beneficial to accomplishing your project work for this class? Why or why not?," typical student comments included:

Yes, anytime a group needs to collaborate, it is useful. This is especially true since most of us are part-time and living off-campus.

Yes. With work schedules as they are this is a great way to get 'the group' together regardless of the distance between members and the hours of the campus buildings.

In summary, the changing profile of students, an increasingly global world, and an amplified emphasis on productivity are all reasons that collaboration must be taken beyond time and place constraints. Duguet (1995) stated that face-to-face experiences are becoming too costly and do not cater to diversity. The introduction of collaborative techniques is no longer a matter to debate. Rather we must continue to explore opportunities that result in a better understanding of a technology-related delivery of education.

Limitations and Future Research

The relatively small size of this study hampers the generalization of the experimental findings. More and larger studies should be conducted to test the effectiveness of asynchronous computer conferencing for completing complex collaborative assignments. Additionally, longitudinal studies should be conducted to ascertain if perceptions change as students become more familiar with technology-supported collaboration.

When collaborating by way of asynchronous means, students had to use the computer conferencing system. They could not use other forms of electronic communication and were not permitted to meet face-to-face other than the initial team meeting. Some students found these requirements too constraining as evidenced by comments such as:

The only drawback to using FC...was that we had to use it without any other communication."

I think we should have had a choice to use face-to-face, FC or both, instead of being forced to use one or the other.

Additional experiments should allow students to freely choose how and when to use face-to-face and computer conferencing to complete their assignments.

Finally, work on refining the attitude scale for face-to-face collaboration needs to be extended to include more scale items. Additionally, a scale that separates attitudes toward face-to-face collaboration from attitudes toward asynchronous collaboration would be very useful to both educators and researchers.

As advised by Fabos and Young (1999), there is a real need to conduct research that measures specific aspects of telecommunications technology in the educational environment. Specifically, this study sought to add to empirical research that evaluates the impact of asynchronous collaboration on student perceptions. The results of this study indicate that although students preferred to collaborate in the traditional face-to-face manner, they realized the need for and benefit of anytime/anyplace collaboration. As educators, we must strive to increase the exposure of students to this form of telecommunication technology. As researchers, we must continue to devise experiments that expand our understanding of this subject.

APPENDIX

Attitude toward collaboration scale items:

The following items were measured using a 1-5 interval response scale.

1. I feel that group or team collaboration, integrated into the educational process, is an ineffective/effective way to prepare a student for the workforce.

2. I feel that group or team peer evaluation is an ineffective/effective way to grade students who participate in these experiences.

3. I feel that group or team collaboration is an ineffective/effective way to accomplish a task.

4. I normally feel very uncomfortable working in a group or team.

Perceived quality of discussion scale items: (Gouran et al., 1978)

The following items comprise the perceived quality of discussion scale. The anchored scare uses a 1-5 interval response scale.

1. The overall quality of the discussions were: poor/good

2. The discussions were: effective/ ineffective.

3. The outcome of the discussions were: unsatisfactory/satisfactory

4. The discussions were: incompetently executed/competently executed

5. The issues explored in the discussions were: trivial/substantial

6. The content of the discussions were: carefully developed/carelessly developed

7. The manner in which the participants examined issues was: nonconstructive/constructive

Process Satisfaction (Green & Tabor, 1980)

The following items comprise the process satisfaction scale. The anchored scale uses a 1-5 interval response scale.

How would you describe your group's problem-solving process?

a. efficient 1 2 3 4 5 inefficient

b. coordinated 1 2 3 4 5 uncoordinated 

c. fair 1 2 3 4 5 unfair

d. understandable 1 2 3 4 5 confusing 

e. satisfying 1 2 3 4 5 unsatisfying

Solution Satisfaction Scale: (Green & Tabor, 1980)

The following items comprise the solution satisfaction scale. The anchored scale uses a 1-5 interval response scale.

1. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the quality of your group's solutions?

Very Dissatisfied 1--2--3--4--5 Very satisfied

The following questions use this response scale:

Not at little some great very great

all extent extent extent extent

1--2--3--4--5

2. To what extent do you feel personally responsible for the correctness of the group's solutions (decision or recommendation)?

3. To what extent does the group's final solution reflect your inputs?

4. To what extent are you confident that the group's solutions are correct?

5. To what extent do you feel committed to the group's solution?

[Figure 1 omitted]

Table 1

Repeated Measures Experimental Design

                          Collaboration Mode

Course                 Problem 1   Problem 2

Programming Section 1  FtF         CC
Programming Section 2  CC          FtF
Graduate Section 1     FtF         CC
Graduate Section 2     CC          FtF
Table 2

Student Background Characteristics

                               Total  Program  Graduate  Program
                               Count  Course   Course    Course

Gender                   Male   43      17        26       40%
                       Female   31      15        16       48%
Age Bracket               <23   12      10         2       83%
                        23-30   30      12        18       40%
                        30-35   17       5        12       30%
                          >35   15       5        10       33%
Status             Undergrad.   24      24         0      100%
                     Graduate   50       8        42       16%
Computer Literacy           0   19       5        14       16%
                            1   22      12        10       55%
                            2   18      10         8       56%
                            3    8       3         5       38%
                            4    6       2         4       33%
                            5    1       0         1        0%

                   Graduate
                   Course

Gender                60%
                      52%
Age Bracket           17%
                      60%
                      70%
                      67%
Status                 0%
                      84%
Computer Literacy     84%
                      44%
                      44%
                      63%
                      67%
                     100%
Table 3

Results of Paired T-Tests

Paired Differences

                               FtF  Asynch    Std.      Std.
                                            Deviation  Error
                                                        Mean

Process satisfaction          4.13   3.8     1.0368    0.1205
Perceived discussion quality  4.14   3.81    0.8914    0.1029
Solution satisfaction         4.07   3.92    0.9146    0.107

                              Significance
                                (2-tailed)


Process satisfaction                 0.006
Perceived discussion quality         0.002
Solution satisfaction                0.164
Table 4

Correlation between Collaboration Attitudes and Satisfaction Measures

Satisfaction Measures        Attitude

Ftf Process Satisfaction    .375 (**)
FtF Discussion Quality      .428 (**)
FtF Solution Satisfaction   .232 (*)
CC Process Satisfaction    0.047
CC Discussion Quality      0.145
CC Solution Satisfaction   0.046

(**)significance <.001

(*)significance <.05
Table 5

Summary of Statistical Findings

                       Hypothesis  Prediction             Results

Process Satisfaction      H1.      FtF> CC                Supported
Perceived Discussion
Quality                   H2.      FtF> CC                Supported
Solution Satisfaction     H3.      FtF = CC               Supported
FtF Attitudes and FtF
Satisfaction              H4.      positive relationship  Supported

References

Abrami, P.C., & Bures, E.M. (1996). Computer-supported collaborative learning and distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 37-42.

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 159-174.

Alavi, M., Wheeler, B.C., & Valacich, J.S. (1995), Using IT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative tele-learning. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 293-311.

Arunachalam, V. (1991). Decision aiding in multi-party transfer pricing negotiations: The effects of computer-aided communication and structured interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Austin, R. (1997). Computer conferencing: Discourse, education and conflict mediation. Computers and Education, 29(4), 153-161.

Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S.R. (1999). Impacts of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment. Journal of Group Decision & Negotiation, (in Press).

Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1993). Computer conferencing and online education. The Arachnet Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture, 1(3) [Online]. Available: http://cac.psu.edu/~mauri/papers/bergev1n3.html

Biner, P.M., Summers, M., Dean, R., Bink, M.L., Anderson, J.L., & Gelder, B.C. (1996). Student satisfaction with interactive telecourses as a function of demographic variables and prior telecourse experience. Distance Education, 17(1), 33-43.

Bligh, D.A. (1972). What's the use of lectures. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Bok, D. (1986). Higher learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Bonk, C.J., Appleman, R., & Hay, K.E. (1996). Electronic conferencing tools for student apprenticeship and perspective taking. Educational Technology, 37, 8-17.

Boyer, E.L. (1987). Toward school-college collaboration. Thought and Action, 3(2), 7-18.

Bruffee, K. (1982). Liberal education and the social justification of belief. Liberal Education, 68(2), 95-114.

Daly, B.L. (1993). The influence of face-to-face vs computer-mediated communication channels on collective induction. Accounting Management and Information and Technologies, 3, 1-22.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 32, 554-571.

Duguet, P. (1995, June-July). Education: Face-to-face or distance? OECD Observer, 194, 17-20.

Eastmond, D.V. (1995). Alone but together: Adult distance study through computer conferencing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Fabos, B., & Young, M.D. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217-259.

Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley.

Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S.R. (1999). An assessment of group support systems experimental research: Methodology and results. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(3), 7-150.

Galegher, J. (1990). Intellectual teamwork and information technology: The role of information systems in collaborative intellectual work. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 193-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,.

Gouran, D., Brown, C., & Henry, D. (1978). Behavioral correlates of perceptions of quality in decision-making discussions. Communication Monographs, 45, 51-63.

Green, S.G., & Taber, T.D. (1980). The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 97-106

Harassim, I.M. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal for Educational Communication, 16(3), 117-35.

Harasim, I.M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual Amplication. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.) Online education perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger Publishing.

Hiltz, S.R. (1986, Spring). The virtual classroom: Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 95-104.

Hiltz, S.R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Hiltz, S.R., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 44-49).

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B.B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.

Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.

Karp, D.A., & Yoels, W.C. (1983). The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of student participation. In H. Rube & C. Clark, (Eds.), Social interaction: Reading in sociology (2nd ed.) (pp. 195-210). New York: St. Martin's.

Leidner, D., & Jarvenpaa, S. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 265-291.

Levine, A., & Cureton, J.S. (1998). When hope and fear collide. A portrait of today's college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morrison, J.L. (1992). The computer conference: Adaptive problem-solving within a spontaneous technological framework. Educational Technology, December, 46-47.

Ocker, R.J., & Fjermestad, J. (1998, January). Web-based computer-mediated communication: An experimental investigation comparing three communication modes for determining software requirements. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.

Ocker, R.J., Hiltz, S.R., Turoff, M., & Fjermestad, J. (1995-96). The effects of distributed group support and process structuring on software requirements development teams: Results on creativity and quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 127-153.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication policy. London: Wiley.

Singhanayak, C., & Hooper, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on students' achievement, option selections, and attitudes, Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 17-33.

Slavin, R.E., Sharon, S., Kagan, S., Hertz, R., Webb, C., & Schmuck, R. (1985). Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum.

Straus, S.G., & McGrath, J.E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1) 87-97.

US Department of Education (1996). Condition of education. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 96304). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

US Department of Education (1997). Digest of education statistics. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 98-01 5). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Waggoner, M.D. (1992). Empowering networks: Computer conferencing in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Warkentin, M.E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 975-996.

Zack, M. (1993). Interactivity and communication mode choice in ongoing management groups. Information Systems Research, 4(3), 207-239.

Zimbardo, P.G., Ebbesen, E.B., & Maslach, C. (1977). Influencing attitudes and changing behavior (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Zoltan E., & Chapanis, A. (1982). "What do professional persons think about computers," Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 411-426.