Learners Perceptions of Group Work in Online Education

Running Head: LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION

Learners’ perceptions of group work in online education

Donna Spriggs Missouri

University of Maryland University College

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...3 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….....3 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION

Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………………4 The Pedagogy of Group Work………………………………………………………………...4 Critical Thinking Skills……………………………………………………………………….6 Co-Creation of Knowledge and Meaning……………………………………………………..7 Course Design and Group Work……………………………………………………………..10 Group Work Perceptions……………………………………………………………………..11

Benefits……………………………………………………………………………………..11

Challenges…………………………………………………………………………………..12 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………..13 Participants and Procedures…………………………………………………………………..13 Data Analysis and Results……………………………………………………………………….15 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………15

Results………………………………………………………………………………………..16 Perceived Factors…………………………………………………………………………16 Perceived Benefits………………. ………………………………………………………..17 Perceived Challenges……………………………………………………………………..18

2 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION

Limitations………………………………………………………………………………..19 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….19 Recommendations and Suggestions…………………………………………………………..20 Final Thoughts and Future Study……………………………………………………………..22 Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………………23 Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………………27 References………………………………………………………………………………………..29

Learners’ Perceptions of Group Work in Online Education

ABSTRACT

Online group work is an integral part of online education. Researchers and educators see a pedagogical benefit in collaborative learning. Although research examines educators’ perception of group work, there are not many studies investigating learners’ perceptions. The purpose of this descriptive study was to research learners’ perceptions of group work in online education. The findings show most of the respondents to this study perceive gaining different perspectives on content, improving collaboration skills, and sharing ideas as positives. The primary perceived challenges include inconsistent communication among group members, member accountability and distrust, the level of teamwork, and group member interactions.

Important factors perceived as vital to successful group work include clear objectives, group

3 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION member accountability, level of teamwork, and communication. Provided within this study are recommendations and suggestions for addressing perceived challenges.

INTRODUCTION

Online education has become a favorite for those seeking alternative methods of learning.

According to Hoskins (2011) it was reported in 2009 that 57% of adults were taking undergraduate and graduate courses online (p. 57). This number represents a 20% increase in one year. The continuing growth of online learners presents a challenge for educators, administrators, and instructional designers to engage learners and meet the objectives of the institution and the learners. Online education allows the students and instructors to engage in a social environment.

This aspect lends to the use of collaborative learning and group work to be a part of the learning experience. The terms collaborative learning, cooperative learning, and group work are terms to describe learners working together to complete a task in a group small enough for adequate participation from all members (Gunderson and Moore, 2008, p. 35). A learning environment that mimics quality includes opportunities of engagement and collaborative activities between learners and contributes to better learning and higher level thinking skills

(Brindley, Walti and Blasckhe, 2009 p. 2). Thus, the pedagogical benefit of group work is always a consideration.

The purpose of this study was to explore learners’ perceptions of group work in online education. This paper also presents recommendations and suggestions in response to perceived challenges about learning through group work. In this paper, the results of the study are discussed. Within this paper, the literature review will provide information about pedagogical benefits of group work, course design of group activities, and group work perceptions. Next, the methodology is defined including participant and respondent numbers. Then, data collection,

4 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION analysis with limitations, and the results are discussed. The conclusion summarizes the findings and offer recommendations and suggestions addressing specific findings of the research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Pedagogy of Group work

The rationale for the use of group work in learning include increased student participation, a supportive environment, enhanced motivation and attitude towards work, and improved social and communication skills (Bromley 2012). The blend of pedagogy and logistics complicates the implementation of group work for educational use (Sutton, Zamora & Best,

2005, p. 71). According to Sutton, et.al (2005) the complications “focus on a range of elements group size, forming groups, getting groups started and monitoring their work, handling problems with participation, groups going off topic, and accounting for group work in course grades” (p.

71). Furthermore, Roberts and McInnerney (2007) outline seven most commonly found problems of group work discussed in literature that encompasses the complications noted by

Sutton, et.al (2005). Many of the problems are inter-connected, and are summarized according to

Roberts and McInnerney (2005) in the below table.

Table 1: Summary of the Seven Most Common Problems

1. Student antipathy towards group work-Students views against group work often lead students to believe group work is not necessary, because one can do independent studying and there is a lack of trust in others. 2. Group selection- The online learning environment offers and easier way to perform group work. In a face-to-face environment the tendency to choose friends and the difficulty in meeting outside of class is a common problem. 3. Lack of essential group-work skills. Students without group work skills due to lack of group work opportunity, or no group work opportunities are destined to have an unproductive experience. 4. The free-rider- The free-riders are group members that do not participate, and allow other members to do most of the work. According to Roberts and McInnerney (2005), this is the most “commonly cited disadvantage of group work” (p. 261). 5. Possibilities inequalities of student abilities-Group work often expose the inabilities of group members to complete tasks. As such, the most capable students are often left with

doing most of the work. The other members allow this take place, and in effect becoming the free-rider. 6. The withdrawal of group members-This problem is the least-cited identified in Roberts and McInnerney (2005), however it has the greatest impact. The withdrawal of a group member with a critical role leaves the group in a quandary. Other group members are challenged with picking up the additional responsibilities. 7. The assessment of individuals within the groups-The case of assessing students unfairly in group work is a problem. As noted by Robert and McInnerney (2005), “assigning group grades without attempting to distinguish between individual members of the group is both unfair and deleterious” (p.264).

In spite of these problems, group work allows learners to learn from one another. As noted by Scherling (2011), group work offers benefits that surpass future jobs, and promote a supportive learning environment which is important to online learners (p.13).

Brindley, et al. (2009) identifies pedagogical benefits of collaborative learning. They include development of critical thinking skills and co-creation of knowledge and meaning (p. 2).

This section will take a close look at these benefits.

Critical Thinking Skills-A vital educational goal is to develop learners’ critical thinking skills. What is critical thinking? There are questions about what constitute critical thinking among psychologists as noted in Nitko and Brookhart (2007, p. 221). However, Ennis (2001) defines critical thinking as “reasonable and reflective thinking focused on what to believe and do” (p.1). He further points out a critical thinker employ a set of abilities and dispositions when deciding what to believe and do. Ennis (2010) offers a summary of these abilities and dispositions in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of Critical Thinking Abilities and Dispositions

A critical thinker: 1. Is open-minded and mindful of alternatives 2. Desires to be, and is, well-informed 3. Judges well the credibility of sources 4. Identifies reasons, assumptions, and conclusions 5. Asks appropriate clarifying questions

6. Judges well the quality of an argument, including its reasons, assumptions, evidence, and their degree of support for the conclusion 7. Can well develop and defend a reasonable position regarding a belief or an action, doing justice to challenges 8. Formulates plausible hypotheses 9. Plans and conducts experiments well 10. Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context 11. Draws conclusions when warranted – but with caution 12. Integrates all of the above aspects of critical thinking Source: http://www.criticalthinking.net/definition.html

Critical thinking skills are increased in an online learning environment when group work is part of course design. This is especially true for learners with different learning styles and from different backgrounds. Brindley, et al. (2009) notes knowledge shared among learners while working to meet learning goals offer opportunities for shared understanding of content (p.

3). In addition, Koh, Barbour, and Hill (2010), states “through the process of judging, valuing, supporting, or opposing different viewpoints, students experience multiple perspectives, develop critical thinking skills, and construct their knowledge” (p.185). As such, online learners are able to help each other become critical thinkers. .

Co-creation of Knowledge and Meaning-The one main restriction attached to education is the fact teachers are unable to simply transmit knowledge to learners, because learners need to actively construct knowledge. The act of actively constructing knowledge comes from the theory known as “constructivism”. Constructivism is an epistemology that explains how knowledge making and human learning works. Ultanir (2012) adds to this definition by noting “knowledge is not passively received but built up by the cognizing subject; thus, constructivist shift the focus from knowledge as a product to knowing as a process” A constructivist learning environment is democratic. The environment has the following characteristics as identified by Ultanir (2012)-1) an instructional emphasis where the environment supports knowledge construction 2) classroom activities that are learner centered 3) active engagement from the instructor with a focus on

7 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION facilitating, encouraging, and building a community of learners 4) active engagement from the learners with collaboration, self-reflecting, and knowledge construction (p.205).

Knowlton (2001) states knowledge construction is best developed during collaboration

(p. 2). The construction takes place as learners work together to share ideas and challenge each other’s perspectives. According to Knowlton (2001), students learn through the give-and-take among each other. As students make contributions to the learning from this, replies from classmates further this learning. This is very important to the success of online learning. In fact,

Belanger (n.d.) discusses a framework associated with Harasim (1990) regarding knowledge construction. According to Belanger (n.d.), “it was developed to help improve the understanding of learning effectiveness in online environments” (p. 8). The framework incorporates three phases as identified below:

 Phase 1: Idea generating. Indicators include verbalization, brainstorming, information

generating and democratic participation.

 Phase 2: Idea linking. Indicators include an increased number of replies, references to

other messages and a qualitative change in the nature of the discourse.

 Phase 3 Intellectual Convergence. Indicators include an increased number of substantive

contributions and more conclusive statements supported by the group.

The co-creation of knowledge and meaning of content associated with online group work is beneficial to learners. This learning creates bonds and trust among learners during knowledge construction. In addition, knowledge construction is enhanced due to active engagement during group work discussions. Brindley, et al. (2009) connects richer higher order thinking skills to co-creation of knowledge (p. 3). Learners are able to gain different perspectives and share ideas.

This supports another theory known as connectivism in Brindley et al. (2009), which states it

“recognizes that in the online learning environment, seeking and constructing knowledge is most often accomplished through interaction and dialogue” (p. 4).While this is a lesser known theory,

Siemens (2004) notes connectivism has a pedagogical approach that allow learners the opportunity to connect through social networking or collaboration tools. The principles of connectivism defined by Siemens (http://sites.wiki.ubc.ca/etec510/Connectivism) are as follows:

 Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.

 Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.

 Learning may reside in non-human appliances.

 Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known

 Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.

 Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.

 Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning

activities.

 Decision-making is a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of

incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right

answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate

affecting the decision (http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm).

The co-creation of knowledge allows learners the opportunity to create deeper connections.

Figure 1 demonstrates the co-creation of knowledge through connectivism.

Figure 1: Diagram of Connectivism

Course Design and Group work

Kuyuni (2011) points out the principal aim of higher education is to make sure learners achieve meaningful learning outcomes. To do this, Kuyuni notes group learning activities with an emphasis on deep learning should be a part of curriculum design and delivery (p.1). There is a rich collection of past and current research on designing effective online courses. The research leads designers to one common point-“in order to create instructionally sound courses, research- based principles need to be applied” (Fabry, 2009, p. 255). Fabry (2009) notes some researchers believe traditional classroom principles can be transferred to online learning. While other researchers believe technology drives principles for online courses; thus, distinct principles should be applied (p. 255). For example, Morrison, Kemp, and Ross (1998) present six principles, which recognize the connection between technology, knowledge, and instruction delivery (Fabry, 2009, p. 256). The six principles are 1) state instructional objectives 2) sequence content within each instructional unit 3) design instructional strategies so objectives can be mastered 4) plan the instructional message and delivery 5) develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives, and 6) select resources to support instruction and learning activities (Fabry,

2009, p. 256). These principles are important to developing collaborative group work activities.

Online group learning can offer an ideal environment in which learners play “central roles” in the learning process (Roberts and Mc Innerney, 2007 p.257). An effective way to design group work and group activities is suggested by Bromley (2012) and the following factors should be considered:

 The number of learners in each group

 Group composition

 Task objectives

 Expected outcomes

 The structure of the task

 Role assignment

 Interventions to support group members

 Necessary skills

 Group task rules

When considering these factors knowing how they fit into the group design is helpful. Koh and

Hill (2009) suggest that groups go through three stages, entry, process, and outcomes (p. 74).

The entry stage consists of factors presence at the start of the group setting, such as group number, group composition, and necessary skills. The process stage consists of elements that take place during the task, like structure of the task, role assignment, and group task rules.

Whereas the outcome stage consists of factors what the group produces and achieves

Incorporating Morrison (2012) strategies, Bromley (2012) factors, and Koh and Hill (2009) group stages will help create a community of learners during group work. Kinne and Eastep

(2008) suggest a “positive, student-centered learning climate in which students view themselves as sharing responsibility for both their own learning and that of their peers” is a requirement for

11 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION creating a community of learners (p. 46). As such, research suggests group projects offer beneficial practices to online learners.

Group Work Perceptions

Benefits-The perceived benefits of group work are widely discussed in literature. One recurrent theme is the effectiveness of using “collaborative activities, group discussions, and other forms of student interaction” as a common instructional method. (Dixson, 2010, p. 2). As noted above in the pedagogy section of this paper, group work allows learners to learn from one another. Moreover, there is a perceived instructional benefit for educators. Gunderson and

Moore (2008) states “collaboration learning clearly establishes its superiority over individualistic and competitive modes of learning. Isolated students do not learn as much or as well as students who are embedded in a network of informal social relations” (p. 35). Lastly as an instructional

Strategy, group work affords learners the best way to learn “through active, collaborative, small- group work inside and outside of the classroom (Gunderson and Moore, 2008, p. 35).

Challenges- Even though there are documented benefits to collaborative learning and group work, the perceived challenges or problems can be associated with tasks and group members as noted in the literature review of this paper. Scherling (2011) concurs on the benefits of collaborative work, and notes that intentional design of group projects to minimize challenges will help decrease negative perceptions based on ineffective collaborative work (p.13). Schelring

(2011) suggest allowing time for groups to work together, requiring group norms, make projects relate to real world problems, monitor group process, require group feedback to members, integrate self-reflection, and evaluation of group members and group experience to combat perceived challenges. These suggestions are discussed in more detail below.

 Allowing time for group work is important, because online learners often are separated

by time zones. Sometimes there is a several delay in response to group collaboration.

Thus, there should be consideration when scheduling tasks deadlines.

 Group norms are important for members to have the confidence to address any issues that

may arise.

 When projects are related to real world, group members are more motivated to

participate, because there is an interest.

 Group work should be monitored in order to provide feedback and monitor participation.

The requirement of substantial feedback among group members is vital to maintaining

knowledge construction within the group.

 The activity of self-reflection and the evaluation of group member experiences permit

learners to gain a deeper understanding of the tasks, and explore the group experience.

METHODOLOGY

Participants and Procedures

The participants in this study were limited to those who participated in an online group project for collaborative learning. Twenty-seven past and current online learners were contacted through social media (private messaging, email, and Facebook). The number of participants constitutes small sampling for the study, and should be noted. The learners were invited to participate in a web-based survey. A link to the survey was included with the invitation.

Additionally, four of the twenty-seven potential participants received a private message with two open-ended questions. The participants online course experiences has a breakdown of 0-5 courses (17.65% or 3 responses, 6-10 courses (17.65% or 3 responses), and over 10 (64.71%or

11 responses). The participation in online group work shows 29.4% participated in 1-3 group

13 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION projects, 17.65% participated in 3-5 group projects, and 52.94% participated in over 10 group projects (see Table 3 for complete participant data).

Table 3 Survey Participant Results

Questions Response Percent Response Count How many courses have you taken online? 0-5 courses 17.60% 3 6-10 courses 17.60% 3 Over 10 courses 64.70% 11 Is online learning your preferred method for taking courses? Yes 70.60% 12 No 23.50% 4 No Preference 5.90% 1 How many group projects have you participated in online? 0 projects 0.00% 0 1-3 projects 29.40% 5 3-5 projects 17.65% 3 Over 5 projects 52.90% 9

Seventeen (63%) of the 27 participants answered the survey. Three out of four participants answered the open-ended questions. The participants were given 10 questions consisting of singular multiple choice and multiple answer choices. The questions focused on students’ perceptions of group work in online education (see Table 4 for question examples).

Table 4 Survey Questions

What do you see as benefits of group work in What challenges have you faced while doing an online environment? Choose all that apply. online group work? Choose all that apply.

Sharing of work Goals and objectives unclear

Gaining different perspectives on content Technology barriers with group members material Sharing ideas Language barriers

Reduces the feeling of isolation associated with Lack of consistent communication with group online learning members Decreases time needed to work on assignments Lack of accountability

Flexibility Group member distrust (e.g members missing deadlines) Teamwork Lack of time

Lack of leadership from group members or instructor/trainer Personality conflicts among group members Open-Ended Questions Question #1: If a student came to you for Lack of instructor/trainer feedback advice as a first time participant in a group project online, what would you suggest?

Question #2-What suggestions would you Lack of teamwork make to an instructor/trainer about group activities?

DATA ANALYSIS & RESULTS

Data Analysis

The purpose and focus of this paper were threefold. First, perform a literature review of the pedagogy of group work, course design, and group work perceptions. Second, perform a study to gain understanding of learners’ perceptions of group work. Third, present recommendations and/or suggestions based on the literature review and study.

Descriptive research methods were used to investigate learners’ perceptions of online group work by surveys. Hale (2011) points out the survey method allows participants to answer questions and the responses are described by the researcher. The use of Likert scale-based surveys are widely accepted for this method of research due to the ease of data analysis (Hale

2011). The data was analyzed by categorizing the factors participants deemed as important by using a ranking scale. The participants used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= not important to 5=extremely important. The categories are course design factors and group work factors. The course design factors include student perceptions of clear objectives, communication

15 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION of instructor/trainer, group sizes, member accountability, and group member selection. Whereas the group-work factors include member motivation, group roles, level of teamwork collaboration, and member communication.

The data was further analyzed by reviewing the responses participants submitted as benefits and challenges. The participants were instructed to choose all factors viewed as benefits and challenges. This data was later paired with course design factors and/or group work factors to determine the need for recommendations and/or suggestions. The open-ended questions were analyzed looking for patterns in the responses. The open-ended responses are included in the recommendation and suggestions section of this paper.

Results

Several trends emerged from the results of this study. The participants perceived certain factors as more important than others to the success of online group work. While participating in online group work factors were perceived benefits and challenges. The open-ended questions revealed patterns among the responses. The data is organized using course design factors and group work factors to share the perceived level of importance of the participants

Perceived Factor-Course Designs. A Likert scale survey ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important) was used as indicators. The majority of the participants identified the following factors as extremely important: clear objectives (88.2% or 15 participants), communication of instructor/trainer (70.6% or 12 participants), and holding members accountable (70.6% or 12 participants). The following factors were identified as very important and important by the majority of the participants, group sizes (35.5% or 6 participants) and group member selection (29.4% or 5 participants), respectively. This section of the results suggests students perceived course design of group work as vital to effective group work.

Perceived Factor-Group Work Interaction-The participants ranked the importance of group work interaction factors using a Likert scale survey ranging from 1 (not important) to 5

(extremely important).The factor communication among group members yields almost a majority response with 94.1% or 16 participants ranking it as extremely important. Most of the participants responded that the level of teamwork is extremely important with 88.2% or 15 responses. Many of the participants (70.6% or 12) responded that member motivation is extremely important. The responses for group member roles were ranked as important extremely important by 35.3% or 12 participants and very important and important by 29.4% or five participants, separately.

Perceived Benefits-Participants used a checklist format to identify factors perceived as benefits of online group work. Table 5 list the factors perceived as benefits based on the percentage of responses.

Table 5 Benefits of Online Group Work

Benefits of Group Work Percent Count Gaining different perspectives on content material 94.1% 16 Sharing ideas 76.5% 13 Sharing of work 64.7% 11 Improves collaboration skills 64.7% 11 Teamwork 52.9% 9 Reducing the feeling of isolation 35.5% 6 Decreases time needed to work on assignments 29.4% 5

The participants believe gaining different perspectives on content material is a major benefit.

Brindley, et.al. (2009) reference to Siemens (2002) learner-learner four stage continuum is noted which appears to be a model for the participants’ beliefs about gaining different perspectives.

The four-stage continuum includes 1) communication (people ‘talking’ discussing), 2) collaboration (people sharing ideas and resources) 3) cooperation (people doing things together),

17 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION and 4), community (people striving for a common purpose) (p. 4). Additionally, the participants viewed sharing ideas, sharing of work, and improve collaboration as important benefits which supports Siemens (2002) continuum.

Perceived Challenges-Participants used a checklist survey to identify perceived challenges with online group work. Most of the participants perceived challenges related to group interactions as major ones. Many of the participants found inconsistent communication as a challenge during group work (76.5% or 13). Equally, distrust of team members and lack of teamwork were perceived as challenges with 64.7% or 11 participants responding. Table 6 list the factors perceived as challenges based on the participants’ responses. A trend emerged from the open-ended questions which shared these same concerns. All three responses for question #1 include communication as a key factor, and offer suggestions for addressing this concern.

Table 6: Challenges of Group Work

Challenges of Group Work Percent Count Lack of consistent communication with members 76.5% 13 Distrust of group members 64.7% 11 Lack of teamwork 64.7% 11 Lack of accountability 58.8% 10 Technology barriers with group members 47.1% 8 Goals and objectives unclear 41.2% 7 Personality conflicts with group members 41.2% 7 Lack of leadership from group members 35.3% 6 Lack of time 17.6% 3 Lack of instructor/trainer feedback 17.6% 3 Language barriers with group members 11.8% 2 Limitations

There were limitations associated with the study. Only learners with online education and learning experience were solicited by survey. Due to the nature of the research, traditional learners were excluded, because of purposeful sampling. The data analysis and results were

limited to only 17 of the 27 solicited participants. For this reason, percentages and participant

numbers are included in the data and results, as not to be misleading.

CONCLUSION

The study shows that online group work offers benefits and challenges. The literature

review reveals that there is strong support for educators to use collaboration among learners.

However, emphasis needs to be placed on effective design strategies, instructor/trainer

monitoring, and group member monitoring. The pedagogical benefits are evident from the

literature review and study results, but participants of the study perceived group interactions as

very challenging. In fact, more than half of the participants (64.7% or 11) prefer to do their own

work. Only one participant prefer to work in groups, and the other five (29.4%) have no

preference. The goal for course designers and educators is to create group work that includes

clear objectives, components for group member accountability and communication, guidelines,

and consistent instructor/trainer presence during group interaction.

Recommendation and Suggestions

The study revealed the need for recommendations and suggestions to address the

perceived challenges identified. The second open-ended question from the survey yielded

specific data relating to this section. The trend in these responses suggests group member

accountability and communication with the instructor/trainer are important for successful online

group work. The responses for open-ended question #2 are displayed in Table 7, and are

considered in the below set of recommendations and suggestions.

Table 7 Open-Ended Question #2 and Responses

Question #2-What suggestions would you make to an instructor/trainer about group activities? Response #1 I would suggest the instructor implement section deadlines throughout the group assignment. Groups need to post projects by sections. It is always helpful to have a timeline associated with group work.

This way it will give structure to the group dynamic and ensure work is progressing throughout the project. I would also suggest the instructor implement an open door policy for students to discuss conflicts within a group. The instructor should also inform the students of what would happen to students who do not completely participate in the group project. Make sure each student understands the consequences of not doing their part. Also the instructor should create communication vehicles for the groups such as group chat rooms or discussion boards. Response #2 -I would recommend that the instructor/trainer be familiar with the tools, processes, & potential pitfalls/challenges that students may experience. I would first suggest that the instructor be the one to decide which students would work together, & to attempt to provide each groups with a variety of strengths … --- Avoid putting all of the creative students into one group … --- Avoid putting all of the ‘leaders’ into one group, etc … I would also recommend that the instructor/trainer provide the groups with a “broad” pacing timeline: --- Group should agree on collaboration tools by ‘x’ time-frame --- Group should have a live collaboration by ‘y’ time-frame --- Group should have working draft by ‘z’ time-frame, etc … Instructor/Trainer should tell groups that they must include him/her in, at least, one live web-based collaboration meeting.

Recommendations- When designing online group work, consideration should be given

to the following areas:

Clear objectives: Objectives should be written in clear and understandable

words for group members. In fact, based on the perceived challenges, it is

recommended groups submit or post an understanding of the objectives for the

group and product for the instructor/trainer. This task will set the

understanding for all involved. If there is some misunderstanding, then it can

be addressed.

Norms: Group members should be required to deliver group norms to the

instructor/trainer. Group norms set a tone for moving forward with group

activities. Scherling (2011) points out the development of group norms afford

students the confidence challenge group members if one moves away from the

norms (p. 15). Group norms can also help with member distrust,

communication concerns, and the level of teamwork among members.

The instructor/trainer should deliver a set of guidelines for group norms. The guidelines should include guiding questions to help alleviate the perceived challenges revealed within this study.

Possible questions could include 1) How are often will the group communicate? 2) How will group members be held accountable? 3) Which type of technology will be used for communication? Considering the objectives and having group norms in place will allow the group and instructor/trainer to be on one accord.

Suggestions-As noted in the literature review, Koh and Hill (2009) recognizes three stages of group-entry, process, and outcome. Many benefits were identified in this paper; however group member accountability and communication with the instructor/trainer can lead to unsuccessful group work during all three stages. The following suggestions are specific to the instructor/trainer.

Scheduled Time-Frames- Scheduled deadlines should be implemented to help

hold groups accountable. If this is not feasible for the instructor/trainer to

implement, then it should be part of the activity design, and the group’s

responsibility.

Consequences- There should be noted consequences for group members not

actively participating. This information can be collected through communication

logs, such as chat, discussion boards, and the group.

Communication-There should be active communication with the

instructor/trainer during the group work. Group discussions should include the

instructor/trainer. This can be achieved through scheduled updates by a

designated group member, scheduled chats or discussion, or the instructor making

comments within the group’s workspace. Additionally, as noted in the literature

review of this paper, Scherling (2011) suggest monitoring participation and

providing feedback helps assure knowledge construction is taking place among

group members.

Final Thoughts and Future Study

The results of the study may not represent all online learners’ perceptions regarding group work. This literature review and study is expected to serve as a starting point for educators and learners that may want to perform a more extensive study about online learners and group work in online education.

Appendix A-Original Survey Questions and Responses

1. How many courses have you taken online? answered question 17 skipped question 0 ResponseResponse

Percent Count 0-5 17.6% 3 6-10 17.6% 3 over 10 64.7% 11

2. Is online learning your preferred method for taking courses? answered question 17 skipped question 0

1. How many courses have you taken online? answered question 17 ResponseResponse

Percent Count Yes 70.6% 12 No 23.5% 4 No preferenc 5.9% 1 e

3. How many group projects have you participated in online? answered question 17 skipped question 0 ResponseResponse

Percent Count 0 0.0% 0 1-3 29.4% 5 3-5 17.6% 3 over 5 52.9% 9

4. Which factors are important in order for group work to be successful in an online environment? (1=not, 2=somewhat, 3=important, 4=very important, 5=extremely important) answered question 17 skipped question 0 Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Count clear objectives 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 11.8% (2) 88.2% (15) 17 group members 11.8% (2) 11.8% (2) 29.4% (5) 23.5% (4) 23.5% (4) 17 selection motivation of group 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 23.5% (4) 70.6% (12) 17 members communication of 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 94.1% (16) 17 group members communication of 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 23.5% (4) 70.6% (12) 17 instructor/trainer level of teamwork 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 11.8% (2) 88.2% (15) 17 motivation of group 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 17.6% (3) 76.5% (13) 17 members group member roles 0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 29.4% (5) 29.4% (5) 35.3% (6) 17 size of group 17.6% (3) 5.9% (1) 29.4% (5) 35.3% (6) 11.8% (2) 17 member 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 23.5% (4) 70.6% (12) 17 accountability

5. What do you see as benefits of group work in an online environment? Choose all that apply answered question 17 skipped question 0 Rating

Count Sharing of work 100.0% (11) 11 Gaining different 100.0% (16) 16 perspectives on content material Sharing ideas 100.0% (13) 13 Reduces the feeling of isolation 100.0% (6) 6 associated with online learning Decreases time needed to work 100.0% (5) 5 on assignments Flexibility 100.0% (3) 3 Teamwork 100.0% (9) 9 Improves collaboration 100.0% (11) 11 skills

6. What challenges have you faced while doing online group work? Choose all that apply answered question 16 skipped question 1 Rating

Count Goals and objectives 100.0% (7) 7 unclear Technology barriers with 100.0% (8) 8 group members Language 100.0% (2) 2 barriers Lack of consistent communication 100.0% (13) 13 with group members Lack of 100.0% (10) 10

5. What do you see as benefits of group work in an online environment? Choose all that apply answered question 17 accountability Group member distrust (e.g members 100.0% (11) 11 missing deadlines) Lack of time 100.0% (3) 3 Lack of leadership from group members 100.0% (6) 6 or instructor/traine r Personality conflicts among 100.0% (7) 7 group members Lack of instructor/traine 100.0% (3) 3 r feedback 11 Lack of 100.0% (11) teamwork 7. What is your overall perception of group work in an online environment? answered question 17 skipped question 0 ResponseResponse

Percent Count I prefer to work in 5.9% 1 groups I prefer to do my 64.7% 11 own work I do not have a preferenc 29.4% 5 e about group work

Appendix B-Original Open-Ended Questions and Responses

Question #1: If a student came to you for advice as a first time participant in a group project online, what would you suggest? Response #1 The main thing to remember is that although the assignment is a group effort, you have to remember that what your group produces is also a reflection of you. After taking many online courses with some assignments involving group work, I have learned that it is important to monitor your groups progress more than one time a day. Sometimes it is hard to create check in times since everyone's schedule is different, and some may live in a different time zone which makes things a little more difficult.

Communication is also the key. Get a hold of not only your group members’ email address, but maybe their home or cell phone as well. There may be a time when your school's system is down and you need to communicate with your group members. If you have other modes of communication, you will be set. Also remember to speak up. If you disagree with something that is going on, speak up, and voice your opinion. You and your classmates must be able to reach common group.* ...... reach a common ground.

Response #2- I would suggest the students make a schedule with their group mates to determine a timeline for their project. They would need to set strict deadline, determine specific roles each member would play or determine what sections each member would complete. I would also suggest the student ensure there is constant communication with all group members. Communication is key. The group members would need to find out the best ways to reach each group member (phone or email). Finding the best form of communication is very important to ensure all members are being updated frequently. Being updated frequently is crucial to ensuring the successful progression of any group project. Response #3

I would tell them to agree on which collaboration tools they would use as a group: Google Docs, Dropbox, Skype, etc …To agree on how often they would collaborate live – whether in person, or via the internet. I would also recommend that the group agree on a timeline of when certain goals need to be met by each member – a Plan of Action and Milestones Question #2-What suggestions would you make to an instructor/trainer about group activities? Response #1 I would suggest the instructor implement section deadlines throughout the group assignment. Groups need to post projects by sections. It is always helpful to have a timeline associated with group work. This way it will give structure to the group dynamic and ensure work is progressing throughout the project. I would also suggest the instructor implement an open door policy for students to discuss conflicts within a group. The instructor should also inform the students of what would happen to students who do not completely participate in the group project. Make sure each student understands the consequences of not doing their part. Also the instructor should create communication vehicles for the groups such as group chat rooms or discussion boards. Response #2 -I would recommend that the instructor/trainer be familiar with the tools, processes, & potential pitfalls/challenges that students may experience. I would first suggest that the instructor be the one to decide which students would work together, & to attempt to provide each groups with a variety of strengths … --- Avoid putting all of the creative students into one group … --- Avoid putting all of the ‘leaders’ into one group, etc … I would also recommend that the instructor/trainer provide the groups with a “broad” pacing timeline: --- Group should agree on collaboration tools by ‘x’ time-frame --- Group should have a live collaboration by ‘y’ time-frame --- Group should have working draft by ‘z’ time-frame, etc … Instructor/Trainer should tell groups that they must include him/her in, at least, one live web-based

27 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP WORK IN ONLINE EDUCATION collaboration meeting.

References

Aksal, F. A. (2011). Developing evaluative tool for online learning and teaching process.Turkish

Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 69-75. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67350440&site=eds-live&scope=site

Alden, J. (2011). Assessment of individual student performance in online team projects.Journal

of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(3), 5-20. Retrieved from

Belanger, M. (n.d.). Online collaborative learning. Retrieved from

http://training.itcilo.org/actrav/library/english/publications/online_cl.doc Beranek, P. M., & French, M. L. (2011). Team trust in online education: Assessing and

comparing team-member trust in online teams versus face-to-face teams. Journal of

Distance Education, 25(3), 1-18. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?

url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=75153228&site=eds-

live&scope=site

Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning

groups in an online environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 10(3) Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?

url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ847776&site=eds-

live&scope=site

Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0

technologies: Education students' perceptions.Journal of Information Technology

Education, 10, IIP73-IIP103. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?

live&scope=site

Bromley Education (2012).Rationale for using group work. Retrieved from

http://bromleyconsultants.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/l4l-tl-rationale-for-group-work.pdf

Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning

experiences?International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(2), 26-44.

Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

Cavanaugh, T., Lamkin, M. L., & Hu, H. (2012). Using a generalized checklist to improve

student assignment submission times in an online course.Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 16(4), 39-44. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?

live&scope=site; http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v16n4/using-generalized-checklist-

improve-student-assignment-submission-times-online-course

Chiong, R., Jovanovic, J., & Gill, T. G. (2012). Collaborative learning in online study groups:

An evolutionary game theory perspective.Journal of Information Technology Education, 11,

81-101. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?

live&scope=site

Choi, H., & Kang, M. (2010). Applying an activity system to online collaborative group work

analysis.British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 776-795.doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8535.2009.00978.x

Dietz-Uhler, B., &Lanter, J. R. (2011). Perceptions of group-led online discussions: The benefits

of cooperative learning.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(4), 381-388.

Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do

students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 10(2), 1-13.

Doo, H. L., &Seung, W. Y. (2008). Team learning and collaboration between online and blended

learner groups. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 59-72.doi: 10.1002/piq.20031

Engstrom, M. E., Santo, S. A., & Yost, R. M. (2008). Knowledge building in an online cohort.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2), 151-167. Retrieved from

Ennis, R. (2001). A critical thinking assessment. Retrieved from

http://www3.qcc.cuny.edu/WikiFiles/file/Ennis%20Critical%20Thinking %20Assessment.pdf

Ennis, R. (2010). A super-streamlined conception of critical thinking. Retrieved from

http://www.criticalthinking.net/definition.html

Fabry, D. L. (2009). Designing online and on-ground courses to ensure comparability and

consistency in meeting learning outcomes. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3),

live&scope=site; http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=43

Fisher, M., Thompson, G. S., & Silverberg, D. A. (2005). Effective group dynamics in E-

learning: Case study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(3), 205-222.

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ690958&site=eds-

live&scope=site; http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?

target=contribution&id=YTJ7PLQBVNDV71UU

Gagnon, G.& Collay, M. (n.d). The Constructivist Learning Design. Retrieved from http://www.prainbow.com/cld/cldp.html Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007).Effective online instructional and assessment strategies.

American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132.doi: 10.1080/08923640701341653

Gunderson, D. E., & Moore, J. D. (2008). Group learning pedagogy and group selection.

International Journal of Construction Education & Research, 4(1), 34-45.

doi:10.1080/15578770801943893

Hale, J. (2011). The 3 Basic Types of Descriptive Research Methods.Psych Central. Retrieved

on May 24, 2013, from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/09/27/the-3-basic-types-

of-descriptive-research-methods

Hansen, J., & Nalder-Godfrey, N. (2004). The Power of Action Research, Technology and

Teacher Education. Computers In The Schools, 21(1/2), 43-57.doi:10.1300/J025v21n01_04

Hatcher, M. (2008). The impact of cooperative learning and structure educational processes in

web based and web supported course. International Journal of Learning, 15(1), 9-15.

Hoskins, B. (2011). Demand, Growth, and Evolution. Journal of Continuing Higher Education,

59(1), 57-60.doi:10.1080/07377363.2011.546267

Hurt, R. L., & McLaughlin, E. J. (2012). An Applied Introduction to Qualitative Research

Methods in Academic Advising. NACADA Journal, 32(1), 63-71.

Kinne, L. J., &Eastep, S. M. (2008). Instructional design in online learning: Components of

quality. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching & Learning, 6, 45-62.

Knowlton, D. (2001). Promoting durable knowledge construction in online discussion. Retrieved

from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED463724.pdf

Koh, M. H., Barbour, M., & Hill, J. R. (2010).Strategies for instructors on how to improve online

groupwork. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(2), 183-205. Retrieved from

Koh, M.H., & Hill, J. R. (2009). Student perceptions of group work in an Online Course:

Benefits and Challenges. Journal Of Distance Education, 23(2), 69-91.

Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M. A., Goswami, J., &Meling, V. (2012). Cooperative learning in

distance learning: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 81-90.

Kuyini, A. B. (2011). Exploring the effects of including students' ideas and concerns on their

participation in online groups. Journal of Distance Education, 25(3), 1-14. Retrieved from

Lynch, D. J. (2010).Application of online discussion and cooperative learning strategies to online

and blended college courses. College Student Journal, 44(3), 777-784. Retrieved from

Mills, Geoffrey E. (2007). Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. 3rded.

London: Prentice Hall

Morgan, K., Cameron, B. A., & Williams, K. C. (2009). Student perceptions of social task

development in online group project work. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3),

live&scope=site; http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=43

Morrison, D. (12, March 2012). Strategies for effective groups in the online class [Web log post].

Retrieved from http://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/strategies-for-

effective-group-work-in-the-online-class/

Nitko, A. & Brookhart, S. (2007). Educational Assessment of Students. 5th ed.

New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall

Oliveira, I., Tinoca, L., & Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: How to promote a

successful collaboration. Computers& Education, 57(1), 1348-1357. Retrieved from

live&scope=site; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.017

Roberts, T. S. &McInnerney, J. M. (2007).Seven problems of online group learning.

Educational Technology & Society, 10 (4), 257-268. Retrieved from

http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_4/22.pdf Scherling, S. E. (2011). Designing and fostering effective online group projects. Adult Learning,

22(2), 13-18. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?

live&scope=site; http://www.aaace.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=66286&orgId=aaace

Siemens (2004). Connectivism. Retrieved from

http://www.ceebl.manchester.ac.uk/events/archive/aligningcollaborativelearning/Siemens.pd f Sutton, M., Zamora, M., & Best, L. (2005). Practical insights on the pedagogy of group work.

Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 22(1), 71-81. Retrieved from

Ültanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: Constructivist

learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 195-

212. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?

live&scope=site

Wang, C. (2011). Instructional design for cross-cultural online collaboration: Grouping strategies

and assignment design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 243-258.

live&scope=site; http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/wang.pdf

Williams, K. C., Cameron, B. A., & Morgan, K. (2012). Supporting online group projects.

NACTA Journal, 56(2), 15-20. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?

live&scope=site