Collaborative Learning in an Ict Text Based Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning Communities

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN AN ICT TEXT BASED SYNCHRONOUS AND ASYNCHRONOUS LEARNING COMMUNITIES. WHAT IMPACT DOES IT HAVE ON LEARNING OUTCOMES?

TAURAYI RUPERE R970202P

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters degree in Computer Science.

Department of Computer Science Faculty of Science University of Zimbabwe February 2006

i ABSTRACT

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN AN ICT TEXT BASED SYNCHRONOUS AND ASYNCHRONOUS LEARNING COMMUNITIES. WHAT IMPACT DOES IT HAVE ON LEARNING OUTCOMES?

This dissertation analyses collaborative learning in synchronous and asynchronous learning communities and come up with the best suitable e-learning community for the Zimbabwean distance students. It focuses on the University of Zimbabwe, Masters of Business Administration first year class studying Business Information Systems course as the research group. The research was divided into three sections, The Structure (Pre- phase), the process (Experience) and the Outcome (Post phase). At the structure stage, students were grouped randomly into three groups, the synchronous, asynchronous and the control group. The asynchronous and synchronous groups were made to registered and familiarize with the e-learning platform and environment. An ASSIST tool was applied to ascertain the dependent and independent variables that would affect collaboration and usage of the e-learning environment at process stage. At the process stage, the synchronous and asynchronous groups were further divided into smaller groups considering the variables analysed at the structure stage. A time period was set to monitor collaboration using the e-learning platform. Various groups were given different discussion topics which contributed to their coursework and collaboration monitored. At the outcome stage, the SATISFACTION model was applied to determine the way students have been collaborating and their experience in using the e-learning platform. The responses of the synchronous and asynchronous groups were analysed with the coursework results as well as the final results and compared with the control group results. E-learning usage depending on the SATISFACTION model was analysed using the one way ANOVA- repeated measure so as to establish the trend. Comparison of the groups was carried out using the T- Test distribution. The results revealed that students in collaborative synchronous communities have a negative impact on the learning outcomes as compared to the asynchronous communities. The asynchronous collaborative e-

ii learning in an ICT text based communities is best suited for the Zimbabwean distance students as compared to the synchronous collaborative communities.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I thank my supervisor Mr. S. Chikasha, for his continuous support and guidance in this research program. He was always there to listen and to give advice on the research direction. He showed me different ways to approach the research. I thank also my co- supervisor Mr. T. Museba for the great assistance he gave. Besides my supervisors, I would like to thank the rest of the computer science staff and students for the friendship, encouragement and assistance through out. I am also grateful to the Graduate School of Management staff and the MBA BIS students who made my research easier by assisting in many ways. Many thanks go to Dr. G. Kabanda for all the effort throughout the research. He helped me most of the times with ideas and information about the BIS class, assisting in monitoring student collaboration and using the e-learning platform.

I am also greatly indebted to the computer center staff and the mathematics lecturer for the assistance in statistics. Many thanks go to Mr. Lampit for his in-depth knowledge in statistics. Last, but not least, I thank my family, for unconditional support and encouragement to pursue my interests, even when the interests went beyond boundaries of social life.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page List of tables...... viii

List of figures...... x

List of appendices ...... xi

Chapter 1 ...... 12 1. Introduction...... 12 1.2 Problem Statement...... 13 1.3 Conceptual Framework...... 13 1.3.1 The Research Aims...... 14 1.3.2 The Research Objectives...... 14 1.4 Why is the Research Important?...... 15 1.5 Research Approach? ...... 16 1.6 Major Questions...... 16 1.6.1 How the researcher approach?...... 16 1.6.2 Main Hypothesis...... 17 1.7 Thesis Outline...... 17 1.8 Definition of Terms...... 17

Chapter 2 ...... 20 2 Literature Review...... 20 2.1 Introduction...... 20 2.2 Problem Based Learning (PBL), Blended Learning, Online Learning, Web based learning & Distance Learning...... 24 2.2.1 Problem Based Learning (PBL)...... 24 2.2.1 Blended Learning...... 26 2.2.3 Computer Based Training (CBT)...... 26 2.2.4 Online Learning...... 26 2.2.5 Web based Learning ...... 27 2.2.6 Distance Learning...... 27 2.3 E-Learning ...... 28 2.4 Synchronous and Asynchronous Collababorative E-learning ...... 31 2.4.1 What Is Collaborative Learning?...... 32 2.4.2 Learning Environment ...... 36 2.4.3 Moderation...... 37 2.4.4 Group Dynamics...... 37 2.4.5 Student Characteristics...... 37 2.4.6 Time...... 38 2.5 Collaboration of Students and students’ perceptions...... 38 2.5.1 Students’ attitudes and satisfaction...... 39 2.5.2 Student contributions and relationships...... 39 2.5.3 Course effectiveness ...... 40

v 2.6 Impacts on learning Outcomes...... 40 2.6.1 Time and Place Dimensions...... 40 2.6.2 The E-Learning environment and its Implications on discussion groups. 40 2.7 Summary of Proposed Research...... 42

Chapter 3 ...... 44 3 Methodology...... 44 3.1 Introduction...... 44 3.2 The SPO Research Structure Design ...... 44 3.2.1 Structure of Research...... 44 3.2.2 Process of Research ...... 44 3.3.3 Outcome of the Research...... 45 3.4 The structure ...... 45 3.4.1 Research group characteristics and Setting...... 45 3.4.2 Data collection and Instruments used...... 47 3.5 The Process (Experience) ...... 48 3.6 The Outcome (The Post Phase)...... 50

Chapter 4 ...... 52 4. Research Analysis and Design...... 52 4.1 The Experiment...... 52 4.1.1 Asynchronous Community ...... 52 4.1.2 Synchronous Community...... 52 4.1.3 Group Member Distribution by Gender...... 53 4.1.4 Response from the Assist Tool ...... 53 4.2 Data Analysis...... 54 4.2.1 Age...... 54 4.2.2 Gender...... 55 4.2.3 Gender and Age ...... 55 4.2.4 Previous field/area of study ...... 56 4.2.5 Level of education...... 56 4.3 Results of the SATIFACTION ...... 57 4.4 Research instruments ...... 57 4.4.1 Analysis ...... 57 4.4.2 Analysis of the Variables...... 59 4.4.3 Findings...... 62 4.5 Analysis of the Satisfactory Model...... 62 4.5.1 Analysis of Variables...... 63 4.5.2 Findings from the Satisfaction instrument...... 66 4.6 Analysis of Marks /Outcome...... 66 4.6.1 Group Analysis ...... 66 4.6.2 Gender Analysis...... 67 4.6.3 Analysis of Synchronous, Asynchronous and Control Group...... 68 4.7 Conclusion and findings on Results...... 70

Chapter 5 ...... 72 5. Conclusion ...... 72 5.1 Recommendations and Future Work ...... 72

REFERENCE ...... 108

vii List of tables

Page

1. Instructional mode matrix...... 41

2. Research Group Characteristics ...... 46

3. Research Group Settings...... 47

4. Synchronous and Asynchronous group characteristics...... 49

5. Group Settings by gender ...... 53

6. Response from the groups ...... 53

7. Response interms of gender from the groups ...... 54

8. Age distribution in the synchronous group ...... 54

9. Age distribution in the asynchronous group ...... 54

10. Age distribution synchronous group ...... 55

11. Age distribution asychronous group ...... 55

12. Previous area of study in the groups ...... 56

13. Level of education in the groups ...... 56

14. Response of the SATISFACTION model ...... 57

15. Extra links and Flexibility ...... 63

16. Content Presentation ...... 64

17. Learning Environments ...... 64

18. Feedback ...... 65

19. Access ...... 65

20. Platform Usage ...... 66

21. Collaboration and Support from other students ...... 66

viii 22. Interface ...... 67

23. Group Analysis ...... 68

24. Gender ...... 68

25. T-Test Distribution between Asynchronous and Control ...... 69

26. T-Test Distribution between Synchronous and Control ...... 69

27. T-Test Distribution between Asynchronous and Synchronous ...... 70

ix List of Figure

Page

1. Electronic based collaborative learning...... 34

2. The SPO (Structure, Process and Outcome) Research Design...... 45

3. Research Group Characteristics ...... 46

4. Research Group Settings ...... 47

5. Initial Research Group Settings in terms of gender ...... 53

6. Response interms of gender ...... 54

7.Age distribution ...... 55

x List of Appendices

APPENDIX 1 ...... 73 THE ASSIST ...... 73

Appendix 2 ...... 75 TASKS GIVEN TO VARIOUS GROUPS AT PROCESS STAGE...... 75

APPENDIX 3 ...... 78 THE SATISFACTION ...... 78

APPENDIX 4 ...... 83 Cronbach’’s Alpha Reliability for the ASSIST tool...... 83

Appendix 5 a ...... 87 Group: Oneway Anova ...... 87 Appendix 5 b...... 89

Appendix 6 a: 1 ...... 91 Appendix 6a:2...... 93 Appendix 6.a: 3...... 97 Appendix 6.a:4...... 99

Appendix 7 ...... 102 Satisfaction Model Analysis……………………………………………………….… 102

xi Chapter 1

1. Introduction

E-learning is becoming a dominant delivery method in workplace-learning settings across organizations of various sectors and of varying sizes. Although many organizations are recognizing the potential of e-learning to bring learning closer to employees and students, there appears to be some issues to be addressed in content delivering and using e- learning. Learners still face some barriers to e-learning, such as situational, organizational, and technical barriers. Moreover, there is a plethora of emerging technologies that have implications for workplace learning. Clearly, e-learning presents training professionals with both potentials and challenges, thereby creating a perfect e- storm with countless emerging technologies, enormous learner demand for training when needed, and ever present erased or significantly reduced budgets through which one has to navigate to deliver e-learning that truly impacts our work and lives. To effectively navigate through this monsoon of e-learning, an understanding of the current state and the future directions of e-learning is warranted.

The recent history of higher education (universities and colleges) reflects a number of important changes that have affected both the structure and the content of higher education. The changes are mainly through the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT).The potential and pressure of the information and communication technologies has forced the design of the learning environments and to explore alternatives to the learning approaches.

There are differences in the way people learn and differences in outcomes of learning processes. The main differences might be related to the differences in the learning environment. Some learning environments stimulate and support learning of all students and also involve the joint construction of meaning through interaction with others (collaboration). By doing so, students work together, exchange opinions about domain knowledge, clarify conceptual base and aim at a shared problem solution. Placing

12 students in a collaborative learning setting, and engaging them in self –directed, enjoyable, challenging, authentic, active, reflective learning activities will result in effective, efficient and satisfactory learning. The computer supported collaborative learning can therefore be synchronous or asynchronous and have various tools that may be restricted on time and place.

Developing countries like Zimbabwe are embarking on collaborative learning using e- learning platforms but recent studies to propose the ideal group suitable for their approaches is not yet proven.

1.2 Problem Statement

Collaborative learning in an ICT text based synchronous and asynchronous learning communities. Many institutions in developing countries are embarking on e-learning to enhance student –instructor interaction and come up with better results. They are using various e-learning platforms. In text based distance learning, interaction can be synchronous or asynchronous. The two communities have different impacts on the learning outcomes. The thesis is to assess collaborative learning in the two learning environments and determine the impact it has on the learning outcomes. Finally a need to propose the best suitable group for Zimbabwean distance students is needed.

1.3 Conceptual Framework

A collaborative learning problem solving tool is recommended to facilitate and guide the students. Different outcomes in a synchronous collaborative learning and asynchronous text based ICT may be due to various reasons and problems. The benefits of both synchronous and asynchronous collaborative learning environments and the conditions or variables that influence interaction are still to be found.

Collaborative learning in both synchronous and asynchronous have an impact on the learning outcomes. There is need to identify the positive impact on a variety of student variables and outcomes and also the way to upraise the negative impacts using the learning tool. Several conditions need to be identified to come up with clear positive impacts on the learning outcomes. Students need to be monitored in the way they collaborate and analyse the impact collaboration has on the learning outcomes. Of the two groups there is need to propose the best suitable group for the Zimbabwean distance education students.

1.3.1 The Research Aims

1. To assess collaborative learning in synchronous & asynchronous environments.

2. To propose the most suitable e-learning community for distance students in Zimbabwe.

1.3.2 The Research Objectives

1. To identify the students’ background e-learning environment & computer literacy. 2. To determine student collaboration in synchronous & asynchronous environments. 3. To identify the level of satisfaction on students in using the e-learning environment. 4. To determine the impact on the e-learning outcomes.

1.4 Why is the Research Important?

Many institutions across the world have embarked on e-learning by applying various infrastructures. E-learning has become a dominant thing in colleges and universities. Collaborative Learning like problem based learning is a total approach to education and involves a constructivist approach to learning as outline by (Harper-Marinick, 2001). It can be applied in both synchronous and asynchronous environments. The benefits of the two learning communities are still to be researched especially to new institutions that are embarking on such technology. .

Many developing countries are embarking on these approaches like collaborative learning but their communities are different from developed countries. The students’ background in computer usage and literacy is different. Their learning experiences vary in several ways as to developed countries. The socio-economic, cultural and political background plays a role in determining the use of e-learning in these institutions. The physical characteristics, learning history, learning attitudes, learner’s motivation and familiarity with technology also have an influence.

Collaborative learning in both synchronous and asynchronous communities, in general, has led to the reduction of anxiety and uncertainty and tends to increase the students’ motivation, stimulus and satisfaction with the learning process according to (Harasim et al., 1997). The Collaborative learning pedagogy shifts the focus from the teacher/lecturer as the contents expert to the role of a facilitator and assumes the role of a cognitive and meta-cognitive coach rather than the knowledge holder and disseminator. The synchronous and asynchronous communication made available by ICT provides a platform for collaborative teacher-learner and learner-learner discussions and this, combined with the accessibility to the immense online resources for information, knowledge and data, fits well with the principles of collaboration and student-centeredness’.

E-learning platforms play a crucial role in the provision of the platform for the synchronous and asynchronous collaboration. These platforms provide interface for usage. The collaborative synchronous and asynchronous communities differ in their execution and their fitting in the developing countries especially to the Zimbabwean distance students. The levels of impact on the e-learning outcomes differ and need to be determined. Hence the main central to the research is to propose the best suitable group which fit to the Zimbabwean approach to the distance education.

1.5 Research Approach

The main aim as previously mentioned was to propose or come up with the best suitable e-learning community for distance education students in Zimbabwe. By doing that the researcher intended to assess student collaboration in the two learning communities, the synchronous and asynchronous communities in an ICT text based environment. After that the researcher would then determine the impact it has on the outcomes.

1.5.1 Major Question

Which e-learning community is best suitable for the Collaborative learning in an ICT text based synchronous community or the Collaborative learning in an ICT text based asynchronous community?

1.5.2 How the researcher approach?

I needed to first find a research group to undertake my research on (mainly the distance students group). With this group, I intended to: 1. Identify the student learning background, computer skills/literacy and learning experience? 2. Monitor student collaboration both synchronous & asynchronous in using the e-learning environment? 3. Assess student satisfaction on the collaborative e-learning environments and establish a link between the two groups? 4. Determine the impact it has on the e-learning outcomes?

1.6 Main Hypothesis

Two major hypotheses were chosen: H01: Asynchronous collaborative e-learning in ICT text based communities is best suited to the Zimbabwean distance students as compared to synchronous collaborative communities. H02: Collaborative learning in an ICT text based synchronous community has a negative impact on the learning outcomes as to the asynchronous learning communities.

1.7 Thesis Outline

Chapter one gives the general introduction and the problem definition. Chapter two outlines the literature review as to what has been done as far as other work from different researchers. Chapter three gives the methodology on how the research has been tackled. Chapter four gives the general group settings as to the research and tools used. Chapter five gives the qualitative results and their analysis as well as findings. Chapter six outlines the conclusion and recommendations. Lastly a set of appendices is shown including the glossary of terms and reference lists.

1.8 Definition of Terms

Asynchronous discussion Discussion where participants read and send messages at various times, over an extended period of time.

Blended Learning The integration of face to face and online learning that is facilitated through the internet.

Collaboration Teamwork or group effort or an alliance or association, relationship or cooperation.

Computer based Learning Learning usually delivered via CD-ROM or as a Web download and that it is usually multimedia-based training.

Constructivist learning Encompasses collaborative learning in which students exchange interpretations and understandings.

Distance Learning A learning process meeting three criteria: a geographical distance separates communication between the trainer and participant; the communication is two way and interactive; and some form technology is used to facilitate the learning process.

E-Learning Electronic learning the process of learning via computers over the Internet and intranets

E-Learning environment/tool The platform or tool used to facilitate the learning e.g. chlaroline

ICT Information and communication Technology

Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) Learning in a group that involves an instructional method which encourages students to work within the learning and knowledge-building communities, exploring each other’s skills while providing social support and modeling and observing the contribution of each member on a defined academic task

Online Learning Net-based training or all training done with a computer over a network, including a company’s intranet, the company’s local area network, and the internet

Synchronous discussion Discussion requires that all participants be present at the same time, as in a chat room.

Web based Learning Instruction that is delivered over the Internet or over a company’s intranet.

Chapter 2

2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

1.4.1 Literature Review

There have been a number of studies on the effect of collaboration in Web-based Collaborative Learning in various fields and disciplines like the one by Dennen, 2000; Pelletier et al., 2001; Sorensen & Takle, 2001; Song, 2001. Most studies agree with the importance of scaffolding in the problem based learning approach so that novices develop competence. Scaffolding can be achieved when there exist social, cognitive and affective assistance, on-line resources and peer support. On the other hand, the collaboration among learners encourages them to develop multiple perspectives regarding their tasks and promotes the articulation of different and contrasting views, resulting in a rich and robust knowledge base.

Other researches centered on electronic discussion groups for distance teacher education in a constructivist environment where Dr. Martin Valcke researched on how student teachers’ opinions on constructivist environment in Uganda His focus was on the how they interact as teacher to student , student to student interaction.

Other researches by Elijah I Omwenga and Antony J Rodrigues at the School of Computing and Informatics in Nairobi University dwell on the role of ICT in bringing about positive change in both synchronous and asynchronous collaborative learning. Their research centered on technology mediation and system perspective. They were checking on the generic perspective and the evaluation of the methodologies thereby increasing the risk that the role of ICTs is playing in improving the education.

Other researches centered on developed countries on their usage of e-learning platforms on collaborative synchronous groups by Fauziah Sulaiman, +Hanafi Atan, +Rozhan M Idrus & *Hisham Dzakiria at School of Science and Technology Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia and +School of Distance Education Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia. Their research focused on problem –Based Learning where they looked at the study of Web –based Synchronous Collaboration.

There is another study: A tale of two cities: A study on the satisfaction of asynchronous e- learning systems in two Australian universities by Nadira Hisham (School of Information Systems University of Tasmania ), Paul Campton (School of Information Systems University of Tasmania) and Des FitzGerald (School of Mathematics & Physics University of Tasmania). Their critical analysis was to check on the satisfaction of students on a particular subject by undergraduate students.

Of all these approaches they were mainly focusing on developed countries. Others do not highlight on the impact on both the two groups the synchronous and asynchronous groups in a developing country like Zimbabwe. Most of these researches do not come up with the best possible group for the collaborative learning for the synchronous and asynchronous communities.

The recent history of higher and tertiary education reflects a number of important changes that have affected both the structure and the content of higher and tertiary education in Zimbabwe. The changes are in part related to a large number of external processes such as economical pressures (through external quality control and rationalization), international collaboration (through restructuring of diplomas and degrees) and mainly the integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).

For the last two decades, huge advances have been made in the field of information and

21 communications technology with the rapid spread of microcomputers, the development of optical disks, CD-ROM and the gradual convergence of telecommunications, television and computer technology (European Commission, Industry Research Task Force on Educational Software and Multimedia, 1996). The emergence of the Internet in the 1990s as an international network of information available to the public at large has revolutionized thinking about how information can be processed, disseminated, accessed and used in every sphere of human activity. It has now become almost rhetorical to speak of the "information society", the "information age" or the "information revolution" when referring to the impact of information and communication technologies (ICTs) on economic and socio-cultural development during the latter half of the 20th century.

Many are very optimistic about these profound changes, seeing them as having contributed to the emergence of a "global society", in which the traditional barriers to communication - time and space - have been surmounted and new dimensions given to the concept of reality through the creation of simulated "virtual worlds" as argued by (Omwenga, 2003). The notion of “virtual worlds” presents opportunities and challenges not only to initiatives that package information for educational purposes but also on the way teaching is done and how students learn. In response, most universities and colleges of higher learning worldwide have embarked on creating virtual learning environments of one form or another for the provision of courseware to both on-campus and off-campus students. However, such environments have not been subjected to rigorous testing and evaluation of their impact in improving specific educational programs in the various institutions.

Economic, social and technological forces continue to change the global economy, and the way of life in organizations and the world. In specific, these forces have and continue to revolutionize teaching and learning in organizations. Urdan & Weggen (2000) related that technology, the rapid obsolescence of knowledge and training, the need for just-in- time training delivery, and the search for cost-effective ways to meet learning needs of a globally distributed workforce have redefined the processes that underlie design, development and delivery of training and education in the workplace. In addition, Urdan

& Weggen related that the need for different learning models due to skills gap and demographic changes and demand for flexible access of life-long learning have played a major role upon teaching and learning.

Education is being fundamentally transformed and affected by information and communication technologies (ICT). The demand for online courses is higher and growing. Education is also affected by the new approaches towards learning and instruction that have emerged recently. Student centered learning, distributed learning, collaborative learning are emerging as the new instructional approaches. These approaches reflect the adoption of rather constructivist approaches as compared to earlier dominance of behaviorist or cognitivist approaches. There is growing students’ enrolment in colleges and universities yet the traditional face to face approach has a number of factors mainly on the guarantee of quality, individual support and the involvement of such students in an active way.

To foster active learning, to give students continuous support, to develop self-evaluation skills and to foster the application of declarative and procedural knowledge, collaborative learning in an ICT text based synchronous and asynchronous learning environments needs to be evolved. Constructivist learning environments are suggested as being suitable for advanced learners, such as universities and college students. This encompasses collaborative learning in which students exchange interpretations and understandings. The design and implementation of E-Learning environments is suited to realize this type of constructivist learning environments. However, these new learning environments imply profound changes in students’ customary way of learning, thinking and studying. Collaborative learning in an ICT text based learning communities can foster cooperation and promise of groupware environments as well as knowledge construction.

2.2 Problem Based Learning (PBL), Blended Learning, Online Learning, Web based learning & Distance Learning

2.2.1 Problem Based Learning (PBL) The Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a total approach to education and involves a constructivist approach to learning (Harper-Marinick, 2001). The curriculum consists of carefully designed problems that demand from the learner the acquisition of critical knowledge, problem-solving proficiencies, self-directed learning strategies and team participation skills. The learning processes replicate the commonly used systemic approach to solving problems or meeting challenges that are encountered in life and career according to (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980).

In PBL, the problem presented to the students at the beginning of the learning process will appear in the ill-structured format and would neither easily be solved nor adhering to a simple formula; will not also always result in the correct answers . The problem will thus serve as the organising centre and the stimulus for learning and represent the vehicle that develop students’ creative and high-order thinking skills. The problem mirrors real- world issues and had to be designed in the context of the learning that followed. It thus contrasted with the prevalent teaching strategies where a concept is first presented in the lecture format, then followed by the “end-of-chapter” problems.

The main characteristics of the PBL approach involves students working collaboratively in small groups, analysing and brainstorming ideas that could lead to a solution to the problem as argued by (Duch et al., 2001; Friedman & Deek, 2002). In the collaboration, the construction of knowledge and understanding is through articulation, negotiation and reflections on ideas. Thus the Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) may be defined as learning in a group that involves an instructional method which encourages students to work within the learning and knowledge-building communities, exploring each other’s skills while providing social support and modeling and observing the contribution of each member on a defined academic task. In ICL, the peer relationships play a significant role in the students’ educational success as previously researched by (Dennen, 2000;

McLouglin & Luca, 2002). When working with peers instead of being alone, anxiety and uncertainty are reduced as learners find their way through complex or new tasks. In general, the reduction of anxiety and uncertainty tends to increase the students’ motivation and satisfaction with the learning process according to (Harasim et al., 1997).

The ICL pedagogy shifts the focus from the trainer/lecturer as the contents expert to the role of a facilitator. The trainer/lecturer assumes the role of a cognitive and meta- cognitive coach rather than the knowledge holder and disseminator. The situation is fundamentally different from the traditional direct-transfer or one-way transmission model in which the instructor is the only source of knowledge or skills according to (Edelson et al., 1996).

The emergence of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has led to a tremendous interest to incorporate the constructivist PBL approach into the Web-based environment according to (Oliver & Omari, 1999; Dennen, 2000; Varanelli & Baugher, 2001; Pelletier et al., 2001). The synchronous and asynchronous communication made available by ICT provides a platform for collaborative teacher-learner and learner-learner discussions and this, combined with the accessibility to the immense online resources for information, knowledge and data, fits well with the principles of collaboration and student-centeredness of the PBL approach. The collaboration in the Web technology commonly uses the asynchronous e-mail, Web bulletin board postings or synchronous chat facilities.

There have been a number of studies on the effect of collaboration in Web-based PBL in various fields and disciplines as one done by (Dennen, 2000; Pelletier et al., 2001; Sorensen & Takle, 2001; Song, 2001). Most studies agree with the importance of scaffolding in the PBL approach so that novices develop competence. Scaffolding can be achieved when there exist social, cognitive and affective assistance, on-line resources and peer support. On the other hand, the collaboration among learners encourages them to develop multiple perspectives regarding their tasks and promotes the articulation of different and contrasting views, resulting in a rich and robust knowledge base.

2.2.1 Blended Learning The integration of face to face and online learning that is facilitated through the internet. Hence is as such the blending of traditional delivery approach (face to face classroom learning activities) with technology enhanced delivery approaches (the internet information and communication technology). It is not presented as a substitute for face to face learning, but as a clear extension to enhance and extend learning through the innovative use of ICT. It was method of enhancing learning through a multiplier effect of combining the strengths of face to face and Internet based learning.

2.2.3 Computer Based Training (CBT) Zahm (2000) described computer-based training (CBT) as usually delivered via CD- ROM or as a Web download and that it is usually multimedia-based training. Karon (2000) discussed the convenience factor of well-designed computer-based training by saying that any well-designed computer-based training- whether it’s networked based or delivered via the Internet – is more convenient than traditional instructor-led training or seminars. Karon went on to say that self-paced CBT courses are available when learners are ready to take them, not just when the seminar is scheduled or the instructor is available. Hall (1997) incorporated both Zahm (2000) and Karon (2000) definitions by underlining computer-based training as an all-encompassing term used to describe any computer-delivered training including CD-ROM and World Wide Web. Hall further explains that some people use the term CBT to refer to only old-time, text only training.

2.2.4 Online Learning Like CBT, online training was classified by Gotschall, 2000 as an all encompassing term that refers to all training done with a computer over a network, including a company’s intranet, the company’s local area network, and the internet. Gotschall supplemented that online training is also known as net-based training. Urdan & Weggen (2000), related that online learning constitutes just one part of e-learning and describes learning via internet, intranet and extranet. They added that levels of sophistication of online learning vary. It can extend from a basic online learning program that includes text and graphics of the 26 course, exercises, testing, and record keeping, such as test scores and bookmarks to a sophisticated online learning program. Sophistication would include animations, simulations, audio and video sequences peer and expert discussion groups, online mentoring, links to materials on corporate intranet or the web, and communications with corporate education records. Online learning is any technology-based learning, that is, information currently available for direct access. In addition, this usually implies linkage to a computer.

2.2.5 Web based Learning Given the broad definition of online training, it would seem safe to assume that web- based training is online training. Hall (1997) defined web-based training as instruction that is delivered over the Internet or over a company’s intranet. Accessibility of this training, related Hall, is through the use of a web-browser such as Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer.

2.2.6 Distance Learning It is defined in its own criteria and its own entity as a learning process meeting three criteria: a geographical distance separates communication between the trainer and participant; the communication is a two way and interactive; and some form technology is used to facilitate the learning process.

Berge (1998) explained the difference between distance education and distance learning. Distance education was seen as the formal process of distance learning, with information being broad in scope, for example, college courses. While, distance learning was seen as the acquisition of knowledge and skills through mediated information and instruction, encompassing all technologies and other forms of learning at a distance. This may be why most educational institutions used the term distance education. In reviewing five institutional definitions of distance education, these were the main tenets: historically, it meant correspondence education, it is planned teaching and learning connects learners at a distance, designed to encourage learner interaction, uses audio, video and computer

27 technologies as delivery modes, delivery modes evolve as technology expands and grows.

Gotschall (2000) described distance learning as a broadcast of lectures to distant locations, usually through video presentations. Hall & Snider (2000), as mentioned above, characterized distance learning with three criteria; they are: a geographical distance separates communication between the trainer and the participant; the communication is two ways and interactive, and some form of technology is used to facilitate the learning process. Willis (1994) in his definition of distance learning identified the acquisition of knowledge and skills as another criterion and supported the former three criteria by saying that distance learning occurred through mediated information and instruction, and encompassed all technologies and other forms of learning at a distance. Porter (1997) shared that distance learning was education or training offered to learners who are in a different location than the source or provider of instruction. Porter went on to say that the technologies used in distance learning, the structure of a course or program, and the degree of supervision for a distance learning course can be varied to meet a particular’s group’s needs or interests. Reverting to Halls (2000) contention of e-learning in all-inclusive form, distance learning as planned interactive courses, as the acquisition of knowledge and skills at a distance through various technological mediums would seem to be one of e-learning possible disguises.

2.3 E-Learning

There are many definitions for what constitutes e-learning. Hall and Snider (2000) define e-learning as the process of learning via computers over the Internet and intranets. Hall and Snider extended that e-learning is also referred to as web-based training, online training, distributed learning or technology for learning. Distance learning, however, was not included in the e-learning definition. E –learning is also defined as learning which is technology delivered or technology enhanced. (Jackson (cited in Parker, 2002)). It is the online delivery of information, communication, education, and training providing a new

28 set of tools that can add value to all the traditional learning modes - classroom experiences, textbook study, CD-ROM, and traditional computer based training.

E-learning is a revolutionary way to empower learners with the skills and knowledge they need in a convenient time and space-independent means (CISCO, 2002). John Chambers, CEO of CISCO, (cited in Friedman, 1999), said, "The next big killer application for the Internet is going to be education. Education over the Internet is going to be so big it is going to make email usage look like a rounding error in terms of the Internet capacity it will consume."

Heppell (2003) takes a student centred approach to e-learning with a focus on the enabling nature of the technology. Stager (2004) asserts that computers offer “learners a rich intellectual laboratory and vehicle for self expression. Although computing has transformed nearly every aspect of society, schools remain relatively untouched”. Much has been made of the potential of using the Internet and other electronic means for enabling learning. The rapid development of Internet technology has caused a radical change in the way learning is occurring. Many other benefits have been associated with e-learning. These include the ability to cater for individual needs, greater leverage in terms of resources and the ability to create collaborative leaning environments and communities as also highlighted by (Zhang & Nunmakeern, 2003: Salmon, 2002a).

The University sector is now embracing e-learning not only for economic reasons but also for the flexibility and opportunities it provides. There exist a number of e-learning systems that are commonly employed within Universities; these include WebCT, BlackBoard and numerous in-house systems. Within these e-learning systems there are a number of different tools, including discussion boards, email, slideshows, streaming audio and video as what (Ashley 2003) pointed. Communication tools form an integral part of an e-learning system as they provide a means for communication and learning to occur between students as well as between students and lecturer. Feedback is integral to the learning and assessment process.

E-learning may not necessarily replace the classroom setting, but enhance it, taking advantage of new content and delivery technologies to enable learning. Moreover, a variety of political and socio-cultural factors are also responsible for the limited impact of ICTs in education in some countries: resistance by the authorities and also by teachers to the loss of control that they may experience through the introduction of these technologies into schools; the linguistic and cultural inappropriateness of much of the educational software available for many countries; and conflict with traditional ways of transmitting and receiving information.

Interestingly, Urdan & Weggen (2000) saw e-learning as a subset of distance learning, online learning a subset of e-learning and computer-based learning as a subset of online learning. Given the review of definitions on all these terms ‘subset’ does not appear to be the most likely word to describe the relationship among these words and their forms. The definitions show a great depth of interdependence among themselves. While one person may narrowly define a term, another person could give it the all encompassing power. This communicates that e-learning , if given the all encompassing form, can be the larger circle of which all other terms would be overlapping at different times and extend given their full intensions. Another rational for this full choice is that “just-in-time” learning is a major advantage of e-learning but not of distance learning. Distance learning purports planned courses, or planned experiences. E-learning does not only value planned learning but also recognizes the value of the unplanned and the self- directedness of the learner to maximize incidental learning to improve performance.

The NCSA e-learning group definition: E-learning is the acquisition and use of knowledge distributed and facilitated primarily by electronic means. This form of learning currently depends on networks and computers but will likely evolve into systems consisting of a variety of channels (e.g., wireless, satellite), and technologies (e.g., cellular phones, PDA’s) as they are developed and adopted. E-learning can take the form of courses as well as modules and smaller learning objects.

2.4 Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative E-learning

The integration of ICT into education and training to support an objectivist model of knowledge transmission and/or a constructivist model of learning is well documented. Asynchronous learning networks promote student-instructor interaction, emphasize student-to-student collaboration, and generate active participation. However, "challenges remain in terms of software to adequately support relatively large learning communities" and identify suitable learning communities for students with different backgrounds.

This is a particularly pressing problem in large undergraduate classes where opportunities for student-instructor interaction and for student-student collaboration are limited and it is difficult to obtain active participation. By supporting collaborative learning in large classes through asynchronous online discussions, constructivist learning is enabled, while lecture sessions facilitate objectivist learning. Using a discussion board in large classes can be quite a daunting task for instructors, due to difficulties associated with handling large numbers of messages and simultaneously ensuring that the discussion really does assist in the learning process.

E-learning may incorporate synchronous or asynchronous access and may be distributed geographically with varied limits of time. E-learning systems can either operate in an asynchronous or synchronous mode. Essentially the asynchronous mode is where communication, collaboration and learning can occur in "different time - different place" manner and where users can select when they wish to communicate as pointed by (Ashley, 2003). This may be very useful where lecturers need to manage large numbers of students. University/College students face a number of issues as argued by (Schrum & Hong, 2002), such as balancing the competing demands of work, family and study. The ability to access and communicate in asynchronous mode can meet many of their needs of a “just for me” learning environment as discussed by (Hisham, 2004; Rogers, 2000). The synchronous mode allows people to interact with each other in a “same time - different place” manner.

As with traditional paper/print based learning there are a number of factors to be considered in developing asynchronous and synchronous learning systems. These include learning styles, communication and feedback, and access. Indeed e-learning is often being used in a blended manner as argued by (Valiathan, 2002; Wenting et al., 2000) to complement traditional methods of delivery. Successful systems often require a multifaceted approach to satisfy students’ requirements.

2.4.1 What Is Collaborative Learning? Passive approaches to learning assume that students "learn" by receiving and assimilating knowledge individually, independent from others as pointed by (Johnson & Johnson, 1979; Bouton & Garth, 1983). In contrast, active approaches present learning as a social process which takes place through communication with others as mentioned by (Mead, 1934). The learner actively constructs knowledge by formulating ideas into words, and these ideas are built upon through reactions and responses of others. In other words, learning is not only active but also interactive. In particular, collaborative or group learning refers to instructional methods that encourage students to work together on academic tasks. Collaborative learning is fundamentally different from the traditional "direct-transfer" or "one-way knowledge transmission" model in which the instructor is the only source of knowledge or skills as pointed by (Harasim, 1990).

In collaborative learning, instruction is learner-centered rather than teacher-centered and knowledge is viewed as a social construct, facilitated by peer interaction, evaluation and cooperation. Therefore, the role of the instructor changes from transferring knowledge to students (the "sage on the stage") to being a facilitator in the students' construction of their own knowledge (the "guide on the side"). Some examples of collaborative learning activities are seminar-style presentations and discussions, debates, group projects, simulation and role-playing exercises, and collaborative composition of essays, exam questions, stories or research plans as explained by (Hiltz and Turoff, 1993). This new conception of learning shifts away the focus from the teacher-student interaction to the role of peer relationships in educational success (Johnson, 1981).

Cooperation and teamwork supports learning evaluation and feedback, resulting in clarification and change in mental models. Secondly, exposure to alternative points of view can challenge understanding and motivate learning as pointed by (Glasser and Bassok, 1989). Third, a group structure provides social support and encouragement for individual efforts.

In collaborative learning in an ICT environment, students interact with the instructors (lecturers) and other students through a learning environment. Discussions are employed for information sharing or decision making through the learning environment which acts as a mode of communication. Electronic discussion groups are hoped to increase interaction between student and learning environment mainly with other students, learning resources and instructors. However, questions have been raised such as; Does the use of collaborative e-learning discussion groups support student interaction in the learning environment? Does interaction in collaborative discussion groups promote students’ satisfaction? What factors enhance interaction in discussion groups? Is there any link between the synchronous and asynchronous learning communities? What impact does collaborative learning has on the learning outcomes?

Collaborative learning involves joint construction of meaning through interaction with others and can be characterized by a joint commitment to shared goals. Learners work together on a topic or task, exchange their opinions about the domain knowledge, they clarify the conceptual base and aim at a shared problem solution. However, task based learning does not inherently imply collaborative learning neither do collaborative learning imply task based learning. Merging the two is quite relevant when the learning involves heuristic tasks, conceptual understanding and cognitive strategies. It helps to prepare students for future problem solving. A collaborative learning problem solving tool is recommended to facilitate and guide the students. Different outcomes in a synchronous collaborative learning and asynchronous text based ICT may be due to various reasons and problems. The benefits of both synchronous and asynchronous collaborative learning environments and the conditions or variables that influence interaction are still to be found.

The diagram below try to emphasize a theoretical framework in an electronic based collaborative learning. Fig 1 Electronic based collaborative learning Student Interaction factors Intervening Outcome Electronic collaborative groups

• Student to student • Student to instructor Satisfaction of • Student to learning student with resources instruction in learning communities Key factors • Learning environment • Moderation • Group Dynamics • Student characteristics • Time

The collaborative electronic discussion groups are the independent variable while satisfaction and interaction are the dependent and the key factors that promote discussion among the students and instructors are the intervening variables. The collaborative e- learning discussion groups increase student interaction with the learning environment when the favourable conditions are in place.

The need to measure satisfaction is critical in order to evaluate whether the systems that are currently being employed actually meet the users’ needs. Whilst attention has been paid to designing and evaluating e-learning systems according to (Lambert, 2003; Trinidad, 2004) there has been limited research into University students’ satisfaction with asynchronous and synchronous e-learning systems in many countries.

There exist a number of instruments for measuring user satisfaction with Information and Communication Systems. Wang (2003) undertook an international study, which

34 specifically examined students’ satisfaction with asynchronous e-learning systems. He sought to examine whether five factors - content, learner interface, learning performance (feedback and assessment), personalisation and learning community influence user satisfaction. He found that all of these factors apart from learning performance were related to student satisfaction. Content and learner interface remains key factors for determining satisfaction. Swan (2001) reported about the relationship of course structure to students’ satisfaction. It is important to have a suitable learner interface that meets their needs when considering a learning system. Material must be presented in a way that is user friendly. Sharing and learning from others, whether it be other students or the lecturer in a learning community is important. Much has been made in the literature of the constructivist nature of learning and the need for student to interact in an enriching manner according to (Salmon, 2002b). Constructivism is where students learn by constructing new concepts in an active manner as pointed by (Gery, 2002).

Whilst Wang (2003) presented five variables that could influence learner satisfaction, he did not specifically include access, which is of considerable importance to students. Wang’s instrument was based on previous research undertaken by Doll & Torkzadek (1988). This study seeks to build on the research undertaken by Wang (2003). Additionally, access need to be considered, in his study, as a possible sixth factor that could affect student satisfaction. Given the importance of e-learning to many universities and the value of understanding the manner in which it is being used, we are faced with the need to measure whether students are satisfied with e-learning systems

Several factors enhance interaction in an ICT collaborative learning environment. In a collaborative e-learning environment students participate without direct domination from the more active students. This has found to improve student’ perceived learning. However, there are factors that enhance interaction in collaborative learning. Various researches reveal that the benefit of e-learning discussion groups can be enhanced by considering the learning environment, providing for moderation, managing the group dynamics, being conscious of students’ characteristics and controlling for time required for effective participation.

2.4.2 Learning Environment In a collaborative ICT text based learning, this is influenced by the absence of no verbal communication that occurs in face to face. A balance of the structure of task (amount of control exercised by the instructor) and dialogue (amount of control exercised by the student) is needed. The main key design characteristics of the structure of tasks are found to be goals and reward. The interaction between the students, among student and instructors and the learning environments and resources need to be well structured in terms of interaction so as to overcome the potential lack of social presence. Collaboration need to be structured into the course to reduce risk of no collaboration at all. Rules need to exist in the learning environments so that information is transferred easily, and the course content is kept simple and avoid potential problems and conflict of interest.

The collaborative strategies and the type of discussion topics put forward can influence reflection and building of shared experience. The instructors need to make goals, purposes and expectations of the discussion topic, lists a lot more explicit so that reflective thinking could be facilitated. Asynchronous discussion questions sometimes helped students to learn the content. Structured discussions have been found to increase levels of knowledge construction. This also has been found to be associated with high degree of cohesion, and encoded by a dense interlinked set of cliques. Students reported to demand for more structured discussion topics of instructors. The discussion forums provide one to many communication as well as one to one. The learning environments ought to be self contained and technology available and user friendly that incorporates student to instructor (1-1) and students to instructor communication (many to 1). Easy access to information is valued by students in an e- learning environment. The more difficulty the students experienced in getting to the equipment, the easier it was to drop the course. When a collaborative e-learning based is valued, authentic and when interactions are positive and enthusiastic students learns grading on quantity and quality become easier.

2.4.3 Moderation To motivate effective collaborative learning, the instructor plays an important role and gives guidance. Considerable time devotion is needed by instructors. Students perceive a need of a high instructor presence. Facilitation efforts are meant to inspire students to interact so all students feel involved. In addition to the instructor the use of a tutor is also a more added advantage since the presence can make the discussion more solution driven rather than mutual oriented. Expertise and enthusiasm of the tutor were found to be the major factors for stimulating student participation in asynchronous discussion groups. An instructor or learning environment engineer need to manifest immediate behaviours in providing feedback to students.

2.4.4 Group Dynamics The characteristics of groups include size and composition. Membership of a group provides opportunities for individual learning. Smaller and less public groups are of assents. Group members interact by explaining to each other for various tasks. The discussion group size was found to influence the proportion of student to student and student to instructor interaction. Students feel more comfortable participating in more fully in electronically discussions with a small but increase more familiar group of students. The perception of the overall class interaction and student satisfaction seems to be positively affected by small group interaction. Too few group members generate little interaction and too many members generate a sense of being overwhelmed. Also the level of social infrastructure that supports the community contributes to the extent to which knowledge as opposed to information is shared across the membership.

2.4.5 Student Characteristics Great consideration need to be given to students as they are the center of all interaction. The behavioural characteristics were found to be strong predictors of student learning and satisfaction. Successful students usually have high level of motivation. Learning in a discursive interaction environment requires that the participants are able to follow the interaction from beginning to end. Students need to have a level of comfort in using the 37 learning tool, experience in solving problems, checking email and accomplishing basic tasks to make good use of technology available. In general, lack of technical ability prevented students from participating in discussion forums.

2.4.6 Time Time is essentially required by the students so that they have enough consistent through the learning environment where they incorporates self assessment activities over a given period. Students need to devote themselves to adequate time in discussion and studying. In an asynchronous communication they is a delay factor that can influence learning and interaction. Students with reliable access were considered to be at a distinct advantage, because they were able to focus on their learning at their own schedule.

2.5 Collaboration of Students and students’ perceptions

Student’s perceptions of distance learning, on-line learning and the traditional classroom noted that until the late 1990’s in Zimbabwe, the primary educational delivery model for colleges was essentially the traditional lecture. Students were predominantly single, residential eighteen to twenty-three year olds although non-traditional working students were increasing. With the New Millennium a greater proportion of the student population is changing to married, employed and non-residential. With new technologies, knowledge delivery modules have also developed to better equip the educational sector in order that they can adequately respond to this market demand.

These now include on-line education (with access through the Internet and learning tools) and distance education involving interactive learning. From the study undertaken it was found that students perceive distance and on-line learning technologies to have provided some benefits. Pearl (2003) reports that online learning courses are aimed at those who prefer student centred learning which enables them to manage their time within course constraints. This gives students the means to study at home, in the office or on the move.

Picciano (2002) goes beyond student perceptions and considers issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Questions exist on the nature and extent of the interaction and the effect on student performance. Much research is based on student perception of the quality and quantity of their interactions and how much they learn on an online course. The study attempted to go further than typical institutional performance measures such as grades and withdrawal rates and examined measures linked to course objectives. The results of a survey concerning students enrolled on an on-line management course at some Universities identified three critical success factors as technology, the instructor and the previous use of the technology from a student’s perspective.

2.5.1 Students’ attitudes and satisfaction Instructor immediacy behaviours affect student satisfaction and learning in Web-based courses. Instructor classroom behaviours ‘immediacy behaviours’ are considered to determine whether they are significantly associated with student learning and satisfaction. It was noted that immediacy behaviours represent instructors’ attempts to reduce the social distance between themselves and students. The study found that while immediacy behaviours were positive predictors of student learning and satisfaction other factors such as student attitudes towards course software, length of course and prior student experience with Web-based courses were also significant predictors. Current models for measuring students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness are perceived as inapplicable for measuring learner satisfaction with asynchronous e-learning systems since they are aimed at either organisational information systems or the classroom education environment.

2.5.2 Student contributions and relationships The teacher is at the behest of the students’ actions (or lack of them) when moving from face-to-face teaching to online delivery. As a consequence student passivity or ‘silence’ is difficult to interpret. Accordingly, there is a need to establish a welcoming, ‘safe’ environment that encourages students to contribute to written discussions. By using

39 student self-assessment it is possible to create a learning environment that is characterised as more student-centred than teacher centred. The affective role of e-learning, which relates to relationships with students and requires new tools to express emotion while making the relationship more intimate. This is in contrast with the managerial role, which deals with student monitoring. They report a change in the teaching personnel emphasizing multilogues with students.

2.5.3 Course effectiveness Research noted that there are a growing number of studies, which have been directed at programmes where an instructor is teaching students simultaneously in multiple sites in a synchronous learning environment where course material is presented and discussions occur for all students at the same time. It is reported that few studies have explored quality issues for programmes where students take a course completely on-line in an asynchronous learning environment and students have some control over when the material is viewed and when they wish to participate in discussions. It is recognised that on-line moderators need to help students migrate quickly to the asynchronous environment to minimise learning disruption.

2.6 Impacts on learning Outcomes

2.6.1 Time and Place Dimensions

A two-dimensional, four cell matrix can be employed to categorize the above educational delivery systems (Table 1). The first dimension is time and the second dimension is place. The time dimension has two levels, synchronous, which is when both delivery and receipt of course material occur at the same time, and asynchronous , when delivery of the course material precedes receipt of such material by the student. There are two levels of place: same where both the instruction and student reception of instruction occur at the same place and different where the location of the instruction and student receipt of instruction are different. These cells can be further described as current primary delivery (synchronous and same), distance learning (synchronous and different), on-line (asynchronous and different) and recorded (asynchronous and same).

Table 1. Instructional Mode Matrix

Place Same Different

Time Synchronous Current Method Distance Learning Asynchronous Recorded On-Line

It appears that many institutions of higher learning are rushing into the new educational delivery systems without fully understanding how "place" and "time" factors impact student learning. In essence, does place, defined as the location of both the instructor and student, impact learning and how? In a like vein, does time, defined as when the instructor delivers course content and when the student receives course content, impact student learning in both synchronous and asynchronous learning communities? There appears to be little research available to help faculty and administrators in determine the "learning impact" on students of these two critical variables.

2.6.2 The E-Learning environment and its Implications on discussion groups Asynchronous discussions supported by IT can play a prominent role in the learning process of students even in large classes. The extended nature of these asynchronous discussions, often lasting several weeks or months, represents a significant advantage over the more commonly reported face-to-face, synchronous discussion context, where there may be insufficient time to engage students in the various phases of the interaction process, i.e. planning and organization, initiation, usage and conclusion. In particular, one draw attention to the critical importance of meticulous planning/organization, detailed initiation, and constructive conclusion. Experiences indicate that while a minority of self- motivated students takes active advantage of these communication tools throughout a course, the majority tend to be rather passive, using the tools primarily as an online information resource for difficult topics and in the run up to exams. Clearly it is critical that the tools should be adequately prepared in advance, so as to guide students in the right direction and thereby assist in the facilitation of appropriate learning. While active students will always benefit, the passive ones can also be encouraged to participate and

41 take a more active role that their individual profiles might predict, given the inherently "safe" nature of anonymous online communications.

The issue of culture is one that must also be considered in the deployment of these tools. As alluded to in the introduction and collaborative learning, it is often difficult to get all students to participate actively, but this may be particularly a problem in contexts where students are using a second (or third) language, or where the culture of the local education system has discouraged student participation in the past. Tools that promote simple idea generation are likely to be easier to implement in these contexts, but students who are naturally more vocal and willing to express their ideas may also reap significant benefits from participation with tools that require more critical thinking. This is as much an issue of available time, since students who are relatively slow to express their ideas may not have sufficient time in a synchronous, 50-minutes session to gain significant benefits, particularly if a variety of tools are to be used, each of which needs familiarization and competence development before successful usage can be achieved. In this respect, as noted earlier, the unrestricted nature of asynchronous communication contexts offers many benefits. The role of the instructor or facilitator will also change in different cultures, for example with respect to the cutting off of streams that run at a tangent to the topic of the class, and dealing with flaming or abusive contributions. Certainly sensitive facilitation is essential and facilitators may like to adjust the level of structure that they provide to students—depending for example on the degree of experience with either using the tool or discussing the topic.

2.7 Summary of proposed Research

After thorough analysis of what have been described in the sections above on the present existing and current work in the e-learning field relating to collaborative learning in an asynchronous and synchronous environments a lot is still wide open in terms of research. Collaborative learning in an ICT text based synchronous and asynchronous learning communities especially taking the perspective of communities or countries trying to come up with these new recent inversions research need to guide the implementation and try to check the students’ applicability to especially Zimbabwean approach. Researches

42 need to be done to assess collaborative learning and find various ways of interlink with the tool e-learning environment. Although there are various e-learning platforms that can be used, with advantages and disadvantages, researches need to focus mainly on how these e-learning environments can be used to monitor collaboration of students in a text based in both the synchronous and asynchronous communities. The two groups need to assessed and establish if they is a link in relation to the learning outcomes. Of great importance is to determine the impact on collaboration from the two groups with the learning outcomes and then propose and come out with the best appropriate group for a particular society or country suitable to that society or country.

Chapter 3

3 Methodology

3.1 Introduction

This study will be objective in nature, taking a positivist epistemological position, and a quantitative approach to studying students’ computer skills and literature background, attitudes and level of education as well as gender and finally satisfaction on both synchronous and asynchronous e-learning communities.

The research is going to be classified into three phases: The Pre phase, consisting of the structure of the research group, the Process phase, consisting of the operations, experience and the research implementation and finally the Post phase consisting of the outcome. The structure, process and outcome (SPO) model have been implemented in health researches on information systems and has been developed by Forster & Conford (1996) for the efficiency, utility and overall impact of health information systems. Although it has been applied on health information systems it can also be used on collaborative e-learning in synchronous and asynchronous learning environments.

3.2 The SPO Research Structure Design

3.2.1 Structure of Research This is the manner in which the research is constructed or the whole of its essential parts. Put another way, the structure is 'the fixed and designed components'. This is the stage where students are going to grouped and determine their background history.

3.2.2 Process of Research It is the performance and experience. It is also a series of operations by which a task is accomplished and information transformed as well as research implementations. This can be described more simply as

'the way things are done’. This is also the stage where group monitoring is going to be done.

3.3.3 Outcome of the Research This is the impact or visibility effect. This can be rewritten as the 'general result of the system in operation'. Analysis of the students’ performance through results is done at this stage.

Fig 2 The SPO (Structure, Process and Outcome) Research Design

Pre (Structure) Process (Experience) Post (Outcome)

Synch Asynch Group setting • Group Group •Registration Use variables and monitor Impact on the groups’ performance learning outcomes •Tool to elicit respond & learning models

Control Group

3.4 The structure

The research group (population survey) consisted of the Masters in Business Administration (MBA) first year students studying Business Information Systems. The BIS course was contacted at University of Zimbabwe Graduate School of Management under the faculty of Commerce and the conveyor lecturer was Dr. G Kabanda.

3.4.1 Research group characteristics and Setting The Population The research group consisted of the same group of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) first year students studying Business Information Systems this time there some

45 few students who did not fill in the previous tool. The BIS course was contacted at University of Zimbabwe’s Graduate School of Management under the faculty of Commerce.

The group characteristics The class consisted of one hundred and eight three (183) registered students. Of the registered students, Thirty six (36) students dropped because of various reasons. The remaining students were one hundred and fourty seven. The initially registered group consisted of forty (40) female and one hundred and forty three (143) male. Three female and Thirty six (36) male dropped. The remaining group consists of thirty seven (37) females and one hundred and ten (110) males. For the first savvy all the (37) females participated. The drop outs did not even participated in the tools Table 2 . Research Group Characteristics Status Female Male Total Original Group 40 143 183 Drop outs 3 33 36 Final Group 37 110 147

Fig 3 . Research Group Characteristics

Original Research Group Characte ristics Final Reserach Group Characteristics

160 143 160 110 140 140 120 120

r 100 100 Female number Female 80 80

Numbe Male Male 60 60 40 37 40 40 20 20 0 0 Gend er Gender

The research group was conducted in a control experiment setting. Initial groups were: - the synchronous group consisting of fifty students, the asynchronous group consisting of fifty students and the control group consisting of eighty three. After the dropouts the

46 groups consisted of forty six students in synchronous group, forty eight in asynchronous group and eighty one in the control group.

Table 3 . Research Group Settings Synchronous Asynchronous Control Total Group Group Group Initial group 50 50 83 183 After drop-outs 46 48 81 175

Fig 4. Research group settings Final Research Grou p Settings Initial Research Group Settings

90 90 80 80 70 Synchronous 70 Synchronous Group 60 60 Group 50 Asynchronous 50 Asynchronous 40 Group

Number Number 40 Group 30 Control Group 30 Control Group 20 20 10 10 0 0 Group Group

3.4.2 Data Collection and Instruments used

Registration The synchronous and asynchronous groups were made to register on the e-learning platform (Chlaroline tool). The process included a period of two weeks. The students beside registration would get lecture materials that included notes and course description. After registration, the students were made to familiarize with the e-learning environment by accessing the platform from within the university for another period of two weeks.

The Tool Used on Structure A tool was devised at this pre-phase which was derived from the ASSIST tool to ascertain and elicit the students’ respondents in terms of computer skills, computer literacy and level of education, age, gender, attitude and background /behavioral learning characteristics. A number of variables were used. The variables included individual learner’s variables, learning environments variables, contextual environments variables, technical variables, pedagogical environments variables and lastly access variables. The variables were divided into dependent and independent variables. The independent variables were the ones mainly applied at this stage while the dependent variables were used at later stages since they depend on other variables so they were applied at process and outcome stages. The tool consisted of 17 items and each item was accompanied by a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting the most disagreeable and 5 denoting the most agreeable. The questionnaire was categorised under the previous mentioned variables.

On the pre-phase(Structure) the individual learner’s variables, contextual and technical variables were used to measure the learning history, learner’s attitudes, learner’s motivation and familiarity with technology, general characteristics of the student, social, political and economic factors as well as cultural and political background mainly in terms of studying. The tool was mainly to determine the potential variables that would affect students’ collaboration and usage of the e-learning environment at the process stage.

Group characteristics A close analysis of the independent variables at the pre-stage (structure phase) was done and considered. This was used to further divide the groups at this stage. The synchronous and asynchronous groups were further divided into smaller groups. The synchronous group was divided into three subgroups, two subgroups had 15 students and another had 16 students. The asynchronous was also divided into three subgroups each with 16 students.

Table 4. Synchronous group characteristics Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Total Synchronous 15 15 16 46 Asynchronous 16 16 16 48

Variables analysed at structure such as gender, age, previous area of study, level of education and other contextual, individual learner’s and technical variables were taken into consideration when dividing the groups.

3.5 The Process

Time A period of research of six to nine weeks was used to evaluate groups’ collaboration using the e-learning environment. Students were given discussion topics and work in their groups. They would organise a plan of action required to tackle the related topic and learning issues and assigning individuals to undertake defined tasks. The course convener/tutor would facilitate the discussions in the different groups and monitor progress and collaboration.

Discussion Topics Discussion topics were given to different groups. The questions would contribute to their coursework marks. Questions were different from each group and had weighting for grading of marks. The discussions contributed to the students’ coursework. The tasks consisted of the work covered and revision questions where students needed to discuss and either use the e-mail facility to correspond with the lecturer/tutor or use the e- learning environment depending on the group. The given tasks to groups were as follows: See appendix 2 for the tasks given to groups.

Collaboration using the e-learning Environment When students were given the discussion topics, they would use the e-learning environment to collaborate and the tutor would assist in discussion monitoring and group conflicts. Comprehensive programs were given at the start to allow interactivity with the e-learning platform so that students would be less apprehensive and more confident in using the e-learning environment. Tutor‘s/conveyor’s presence made the discussion more solution driven rather than ideas focused and more mutually oriented. The collaborative discussion groups were facilitated by the e-learning platform so as to inspire students to interact and also to feel involved.

3.6 The Outcome (The Post Phase)

During this stage satisfaction levels were assessed. The SATISFACTION model was devised and applied to determine students’ levels satisfaction in using the e-learning environment. A number of dependent variables were used to measure satisfaction in both the synchronous and asynchronous groups. Content presentation, Learning environment, Flexibility and extra links, Feedback, Access, Platform usage, Interface and Collaboration and support from other students These were the variables used to measure the satisfaction level of students on the usage of the e-learning platform during the learning process. The model was administered to students when they were about to complete their course. It consisted of 8 sections depending on the variables mentioned above. Each item was accompanied by a 5 -point Likert scale, with 1 denoting the most disagreeable and 5 denoting the most agreeable. See Appendix A3.

The questions from on questionnaire were given equal weighting and were classified according to the variables mentioned above. The responses to the model were captured and the reliability of each part of the evaluation questionnaire established with Cronobach alpha 0.7. The analysis and findings of this SATISFACTORY model were combined with the process results (coursework) and the final results and compared with the control group. To determine the impacts on the learning outcomes statistical analysis for the various groups was done and results used were used to determine the group that is suitable to the Zimbabwean distance students.

Chapter 4

4 Research Analysis and Results

4.1 The experiment

4.1.1 Asynchronous community In this learning community, the students could log on to the class or discussion any time, think about what is being discussed and post their own responses when they wish. This was found to be very comfortable for some of the students whose work commitments were not able to accommodate a coordinated meeting time. Students were encouraged to log on to the class at least three days a week. For the sake of analysis the researcher used 2 days a week for this group.

4.1.2 Synchronous community In this learning community the students could log on to the class or discussion on Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 1700hrs up to 1830hrs. This time was found to be convenient for most of the students whom we found that they where still at their work places and they will have finished their business of the day and while they were waiting for the traffic jam to clear so that they could travel home.

Coordination of this time was found to be a problem when some of the students were indicating that they have access to the internet at home and they would prefer studying at home.

The analysis on the groups took into consideration the variables which either were dependent or independent depending on the stage where they were applied. For the sake of analysis also the researcher used 1 as the code for this group.

4.1.3 Group member’s distribution by gender At the beginning of this task the students were distributed as follows synchronous community consisted of 46 students , with 36 male and 10 female, While the asynchronous had 37 male and 11 female while the control had 65 five male and 16 female.

Table 5 Group Settings by gender Synchronous Group Asynchronous Group Control Group Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 36 10 37 11 37 16 110 37

Fig 5 Initial Research Group Settings in terms of gender

Final Research group settings in terms of gender

70 60 50 40 30

number 20 10 0 Male Female Male Female Male Female

Synchronous Asynchronous Control Group Group Group Groups

4.1.4 Response from the other Tool After applying the ASSIST tool, from the synchronous group, a total of 24 students responded to the tool while from asynchronous a total of 40 responded. Table 6 Response from the group Original group Responded Not responded Synchronous 46 24 22 Asynchronous 48 40 8

Responses gender distribution In the synchronous group who responded the gender distribution consisted of 166 male and 8 female while in the asynchronous 29 male and 11 female responded.

Table 7 Response in terms of Gender groups Male Female Total responded Synchronous 16 8 24 Asynchronous 29 11 40

Fig 6 Responses in terms of gender

Response in terms of gender from the Response in terms of gender from the synchronous group asynchronous group

18 35 16 30 14 25 12 10 Male 20 Male 8 Female 15 Female number 6 number 10 4 2 5 0 0 gender gender

4.2 Data Analysis The tool was mainly implemented to determine the independent variables that would affect collaboration of students during the experiment as well as usage of the e-learning platform. Distribution of students according to the variables was as follows:-

4.2.1 Age

From the tool, results showing age difference were grouped according to ranges for the two groups. Age was considered as an independent variable since it could affect the way students collaborate during the experiment. It can also determine the skill and attitudes as well as motivation. Table 8 Age distribution in the synchronous group 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 >=45 6 10 5 2 1 Table 9 Age distribution in the Asynchronous group 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 >=45 13 12 8 5 2

Fig 7 Age distribution

Age distribution in the synchronous Age distribution in the asynchronous group group

12 14 10 12 25-30 25-30 8 10 30-35 30-35 8 6 35-40 35-40 6 4 40-45 40-45 >=45 4 2 >=45

numberof students 2 numberof students 0 0 age range age range

The results shown in both the two tables’ shows that those students aged above forty were few and those between 30 and 35 were many in both the two groups.

4.2.2 Gender General observation was that fewer women registered for the courses a total of 40 as compared to 143 male students. May this was due to the nature of the course and the level. Gender imbalance is a major independent variable under the contextual variables, and it affected the collaboration of students.

4.2.3 Gender and Age Of the female who responded to the ASSIST tool, in the synchronous group they were distributed as follows. Table 10 Age distribution synchronous group 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 >=45 Total Male 4 3 0 1 0 8

Female 3 6 4 2 1 16

Table 11 Age distribution in synchronous group 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 >=45 Total Female 2 7 1 0 1 11 Male 9 8 5 5 2 29

Discussion The results reveal less women coming for further education after the first diploma or degree. Few women do post graduates at the age of twenty-five to thirty years. The less women students might be due to the fact most female by that time will be married and having a family to look after. The thirty five to forty age groups revealed that far less female student were doing studies. This might be due to the social factors were most women are contented with their working environment and do not want further their studies. Female in the society are not really breadwinners so they do not want to overburden themselves in doing further studies.

4.2.4 Previous field/area of study Previous area or field of study was grouped as social sciences, pure sciences and communication sciences. The results are listed on the table below:

Table 12 Previous area of study in the groups Social sciences Pure sciences Communication sciences Total synchronous 14 8 2 24 Asynchronous 29 3 8 40

The results also reveal that most students who do the course had done social sciences as compared to the pure and communication sciences.

4.2.5 Level of education The level of education was classified as college diploma, tertiary degree and other. The results are shown below: Table 13 Level of education in the groups College diploma Tertiary degree Other Total synchronous 4 15 5 24 Asynchronous 6 25 9 40

4.3 Results on the SATIFACTION The SATISFACTION model was applied at the end of the research to assess how students were satisfied with the learning environment and all that was associated with it. It was applied to the two groups the synchronous and asynchronous. The response to the model is shown on the table below.

Table 14 Response of the SATISFACTION model Synchronous Group Asynchronous Group Total 30 40 71

The general group settings give a clear outline on how the tools and models were applied and implemented. The qualitative analysis is going to be shown in the next section.

4.4 Research instruments

On the Structure stage (Pre-Stage) as explained in the previous section students initially were grouped into 3, the synchronous, asynchronous and the control group. Variables were classified into dependent and independent variables.

The information from the ASSIST was used to derive the tool and responses were captured into a spreadsheet and the SPSS was used to carry-out the analysis.

4.4.1 Analysis

The ASSIST instrument had eighteen questions and the questions were grouped according to attitude towards learning, organization, motivation, pressure of work, feedback on work and behaviour towards learning. The reliability of the tool was measured using Cronobach’s Alpha at 0.7.

Reliability of the tool Attitude to Learning: Reliability R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Reliability Coefficients is described in terms of number of cases and number of items. N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = . 6838 Motivation: Reliability Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 3 Alpha = . 8030 Pressure: Reliability Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = . 8574 Behaviour: Reliability Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 3 Alpha = . 7887 Organization: Reliability Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 5 Alpha = .2973 Feedback on Work: Reliability Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .6442

Findings on the reliability Using a Cronobach’s Alpha Reliability coefficient of 0.7 the tool applied was reliable as four variables have Alpha greater than or equal to 0.7 and another was closer to 0.7 with only one variable not reliable.

4.4.2 Analysis of the Variables

The independent variables set up of the groups have been discussed in the previous section. A set of assumptions and hypothesis set in the previous section were tested and analysed using one way ANOVA tests.

Assumptions: _ • The dependent variable(s) are normally distributed. (Attitude towards learning, organization, motivation, pressure of work, feedback on work and behaviour towards learning)

• The two groups have approximately equal variance on the dependent variable. (See the Levene's Test. Appendix A4)

Dependent variables against the 2 Groups (Synchronous and Asynchronous) The analysis on the means was done on the bases of the following hypothesis: Hypotheses: Null: There are no significant differences between the groups' mean scores with the dependent variables. Alternate: There is significant differences between the groups’ mean scores with the dependent variables. Results and Findings From the results shown see Appendix A5 all the variables show a significant difference (sd) value of greater than 0.05 to show that the variables are insignificant with the two groups. It means the dependent variables i.e. attitude towards learning, organization, motivation, pressure of work, feedback on work and behavior towards learning are not significant with the type of groups which are synchronous and asynchronous. This was mainly because the initial group settings have been selected as random so most students have the closer to the same background irregardless of the group that they were allocated.

The dependent variables against Gender The following hypotheses were used during the analysis.

Hypotheses: Null: There are no significant differences between the gender's mean scores with the dependent variables. Alternate: There is a significant difference between the gender’s mean scores with the dependent variables. Results and findings The results from appendix 5b show that gender has no significance effect on the behaviour, pressure, attitudes to learning, organization, motivation and feedback of work. The significant difference is greater than 0.05 for all the variables. This might mainly because since it was a post graduate class where students enrolled would have resolved the influence of these variables at undergraduate studies or other previous. Gender does not have a significant difference in the way students are motivated, pressure of work, organization, attitudes to work even though the male students were more than the female.

The dependent variables against previous field of study Hypotheses: Null: There are no significant differences between the previous field of study’ mean scores with the dependent variables. Alternate : There is a significant difference between the previous field of study’ mean scores with the dependent variables. Results and findings The results see appendix 5c shows that previous field of study have a significance role in the attitude towards e learning. The sd is 0.037 less than 0.05 to show that previous area of study has a significant difference with the attitude towards learning. The post hoc tests homogenous tests show that the pure sciences and social sciences have mean level of prejudice higher than the communication sciences. This shows also that the previous area of study have equal variances with the dependent variables. This could have been be because students from different faculties have a different way of learning and access to technology, even writing examinations as some are written at the end of the semester while others are not. Pressure of work may be high for pure sciences as compared to the

60 communication and social sciences so students from pure sciences tend to be more organized.

The dependent variables against Age Group Hypotheses: Null: There are no significant differences between the age group’ mean scores with the dependent variables. Alternate : There is a significant difference between the age group’ mean scores with the dependent variables. Results and findings The results show a significance difference on attitude towards education and have a sd of 0.04. This is the same with organization that have a significance difference of 0.03 and 0.05 respectively. Some age groups are more organized than others with age groups greater than fourty (40) showing negative attitude towards the use of computers but being more organization than those whose ages are less than fourty (40).

The dependent variables with previous level of education Hypotheses Null : There are no significant differences between the previous level of education’ mean scores with the dependent variables. Alternate: There is a significant difference between the previous level of education’ mean scores with the dependent variables. Results and Findings The results show that the previous level of education have no significance with the dependence variables since the significant values are greater than 0.05. The significance difference with the mean score with the independent variable shows that most have attained first degree.

4.4.3 Findings

Although gender showed no significance with previous study and attitudes towards learning, sometimes it can affect the way students collaborate. The tool was only applied to students who have managed to enroll for the course but if it was applied across to those who have not enrolled it could reflect a change.

4.5 Analysis of the Satisfaction results

The satisfactory questionnaire had eight variables (sections) which were being tested. The variables included: Interface, Access, Collaboration with other students, Feedback, Platform usage, Learning environment, Content presentation and Extra links.

The model was applied to determine the levels of satisfaction of students by the learning environment taking into consideration the different variables associated with the community in which they were members. Results of this analysis can help us to identify if there is any community in with the students are more comfortable than the other. These will intent help us to propose the most applicable community taking into consideration the impact on learning outcomes.

The reliability of the Satisfaction Model The reliability was calculated using Alpha 0.7 most of the variables showed values greater than 0.7 hence reliable. Variable Alpha Scale Interface 0.721

Access 0.656 Collaboration with other students 0.841 Feedback 0.450 Platform usage 0.321 Learning environment 0.892 Content presentation 0.678 Extra links 0.785

4.5.1 Analysis of the variables Assumptions: _ • The dependent variables are normally distributed. (interface, access, collaboration with other students, feedback, platform usage, learning environment, content presentation and extra link)

• The two communities (synchronous and Asynchronous) have approximately equal variance on the dependent variable. (See the one way ANOVA Test. Appendix A6)

The results shown in appendix shows that some variables had a significance difference between the two communities. Extra links

Table 15 Extra Links and Flexibility Extra Links and Flexibility: Significant difference

Q1 I manage to have time to explore the e-learning platform Between Groups .003

5. I did not bother to check what was on the e-learning platform. Between Groups .000

Question 1 shows a significance difference of 0.03 which is greater than 0.005. This shows that the two groups differ on extra links. The result is due to the fact that the asynchronous groups mainly had enough time on the e-learning platform and hence have time to explore the extra links. This is the same with Question 5 on extra links that showed greater significance difference 0.00.

Content Presentation Table 16. Content Presentation

Content Presentation: Significant

difference

Q1. There was a lot of work and material needed to be Between Groups .015 discussed and done

2. I was comfortable with the structure of the course and Between Groups .040 content.

3. I found the course objectives clear and achievable. Between Groups .043 The objectives of the course and the comfortability of students were significantly different with the groups. This was the same with work material to be discussed. Students felt as if they were different mainly because of the discussion topics applied and given which were different. This showed as if the objectives of the course are different from one group to another.

Learning environments Table 17. Learning Environments

Significant Content Presentation: difference

2.The e-learning environment makes it easy for me to discuss questions with my peers and lecturers and/or Between Groups .014 tutors

3.The learning environment makes it easy for me to Between Groups .000 share what I learn with the learning community

The two groups significantly showed difference on the usage of the e-learning environment as some groups were able to share the experience using the e-learning environment especially the asynchronous environment. This was also further analyzed using the actual login counts.

Feedback Table 18. Feedback

Feedback: Significant

difference

The delivery of the lecture through hardware and its media Between Groups .044 was satisfactory

2. There was a lack of organisation from the e-moderator in Between Groups .005 most aspects.

5. I found the whole thing extremely frustrating. Between Groups .000

8. I find it important that the e-learning lecturer/moderator provides direction in terms of managing the learning in Between Groups .000 terms of group tasks.

9. Providing summaries of these discussions is also useful. Between Groups .000

The feedback was expected to be different between the two groups as the asynchronous had more time to check the platform or the alternative e-mail that was used. Access Table 19. Access Significant Access: difference

2. The speed of access to the e-learning system was slow when Between .004 accessed from the university. Groups

3. The speed of access to the e-learning system was slow when Between .000 accessed from outside university. Groups

5. Access of internet and email at outside University was Between .000 difficult. Groups

6. We did consult the e-learning site or email regularly on Between .000 feedbacks. Groups

There was a significant difference in the accessing as they were some problems with the platform during the course. The access from outside was generally slow and some students did not want to pay for using internet from outside the university as they saw it costly.

Platform Usage Table 20. Platform Usage Significant Platform Usage difference

2. The orientation session prepared me adequately for the platform Between .000 usage. Groups

Between 3. I preferred using other forms other than the e-learning platform. .032 Groups

4. I felt very close to my group mates regardless of distances apart Between .000 when using the e-learning platform. Groups

5. I would log to the e-learning platform daily to check group Between .000 discussions experience is valuable. Groups

The synchronous group rarely logged on to the internet daily and they preferred using their e-mails for communication.

Collaboration and Support from other students Table 21. Collaboration and support from other Students Significant Collaboration and Support from other students difference

3. I really wanted to join other discussion group other than my Between .000 own. Groups

Between 4. I got less support from my other students. .000 Groups

5. The core students' discussion answers sometimes were Between .000 completely off task. Groups

8. The participation in the discussion groups was a good Between .000 preparatory activity for the examinations. Groups

9. Participation in discussion groups has helped me to learn to work Between .000 together. Groups

Between 11. I dared to defend my position on the group .000 Groups

The collaboration and support from other students were significantly different from the synchronous and asynchronous groups. The asynchronous supported each other and could defend their position as compared to the synchronous.

Interface Table 22 . Interface Significance Interface: difference

Between Q2. The e-learning platform provided good help .025 Groups

Between Q4. The environment was user friendly .002 Groups

The asynchronous group who could access extra links on the e-learning platform got help from the extra links and the other sites as compared to the synchronous hence there is a significant difference between the groups.

4.5.2 Findings from the Satisfaction instrument

The results shown on appendix A6 shows a major difference in the level of satisfaction between the two groups. The synchronous shows collaboration but less satisfaction in using the e-learning platform while the Asynchronous used the e-learning but were not collaborating well. This might be because some other students are not comfortable in with the times they were supposed to log on to the system so as to use the e-learning platform especially those in the synchronous group. But those times they manage to login they could communicate/ collaborate as there was always at least someone to share information with. The asynchronous students could discuss before using the platform while the other groups could not feel the presence and effect of the platform. Hence the asynchronous managed to get more access extra links and feel the e-learning environment.

4.6 Analysis of Marks /Outcome

The independent variables were the groups and gender while coursework mark, final exam mark and the total exam mark were the dependent variables. The results were used to measure the impact on the outcomes. A set of assumptions and hypothesis set in chapter 1 were tested and analysed using one way ANOVA tests and T distribution.

4.6.1 Group Analysis Assumptions: _ • The marks are normally distributed. (coursework, exam and final mark) • The two groups have approximately equal variance on the marks. Table 23. Group analysis

Sig. difference

Total Course_Work as % Between Groups .001

Total Exam as % Between Groups .524

Final Mark as % Between Groups .281 The Total Course work mark has a significance difference of 0.001 to show that the two groups were different but on final exam mark and total exam mark there is no difference.

4.6.2 Gender Analysis Assumptions: _ • The marks are normally distributed. (coursework, exam and final mark) • The gender has approximately equal variance on the marks.

Sig. difference

Total Coursework as % Between Groups .328

Total Exam as % Between Groups .344

Final Mark as % Between Groups .058 Table 24. Gender Gender has no significant difference to performance between the two groups as Sig difference is greater than 0.05.

4.6.3 Analysis of Synchronous, Asynchronous and Control Group The groups were tested using the T-Test distribution. T-Test Distribution: Asynchronous and Control

Groups Std. Error Mean

Asynchronous 1.62 Total Course_Work as % Control 2.26

Asynchronous 1.77401778277193 Total Exam as % Control 1.94319755113779

Asynchronous 1.23 Final Mark as % Control 1.64

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances Sig. (2-tailed)

Total Equal variances assumed .001 CourseWork as % Equal variances not assumed .001

Total Exam Equal variances assumed .575 as % Equal variances not assumed .571

Equal variances assumed .126 Final Mark as % Equal variances not assumed .118 Table 25. T Test Distribution for Asynchronous and Control Using the Levene’s test of equality the significance difference on the coursework between the control and the asynchronous group of 0.001 shows that the two groups have equal variance on the coursework marks since it is less than 0.025.

T-Test Distribution: Synchronous and Control

Group Statistics

Groups N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Total Synchronous 40 55.88 13.06 2.07 Course_Work as % Control 49 55.82 15.84 2.26

Total Exam as Synchronous 40 62.24285714285720 10.90121189236018 1.72363294179862 % Control 47 60.70212765957450 13.32189123094585 1.94319755113779

Final Mark as Synchronous 40 59.50 8.68 1.37 % Control 47 57.85 11.26 1.64 Table 26. T-Test distribution for Synchronous and Control For the Independent sample tests see appendix 8 and the results which is a two tailed significance shows that there is no difference between the synchronous and asynchronous groups in as far as the performance graded by marks.

T Distribution: Synchronous and Asynchronous

Group Statistics

Groups N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Total Asynchronous 44 65.45 10.76 1.62 Course_Work as % Synchronous 40 55.88 13.06 2.07

Total Exam as Asynchronous 41 59.20557491289200 11.35925626250383 1.77401778277193 % Synchronous 40 62.24285714285720 10.90121189236018 1.72363294179862

Final Mark as Asynchronous 41 61.10 7.90 1.23 % Synchronous 40 59.50 8.68 1.37

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances Sig. (2-tailed) Significant difference

Total Course Equal variances assumed .000 Work as % Equal variances not assumed .000

Equal variances assumed .223 Total Exam as % Equal variances not assumed .223

Equal variances assumed .389 Final Mark as % Equal variances not assumed .389 Table 27. T-Test Distribution between Asynchronous and Synchronous The results show that the asynchronous have a greater mean level of prejudice as compared to the synchronous.

The results shown in table on the independent sample test show significance difference of mean on a two tailed to be 0.000 to show that the two groups are 100% different. This proves the first hypothesis that Collaborative learning in an ICT text based synchronous community has a negative impact on the learning outcomes as to the asynchronous learning communities.

4.7 Conclusion and findings on Results

The ASSIST tool which was applied to determine variables that might affect collaboration and usage of the e-learning environment did not show much difference as the students are postgraduate students who are different from undergraduate students.

Another group for the research like an undergraduate class may be considered but it would have its own variables since students would have contextual and pedagogic variables that affect collaboration. Age tend to affect collaboration and usage of the e- learning environment as young age are somehow computer literacy mainly because due to the evolution of ICT.

The Satisfaction model showed that the asynchronous groups can collaborate more but the students are not comfortable in using the e-learning tool. The cause may be that many students are still comfortable with the traditional way of lecture delivery. They have not migrated to the modern way of using the e-learning tools. The synchronous group can manage to make use of extra links and navigate the platform and access important materials but collaboration is minimal.

The outcomes were measured on performance using course work and final exam marks. The coursework marks reflective a well judged result. The exam mark showed no significance to the three groups because when students write the final exam mark they did not use the e-learning platform hence someone can perform well not considering the way they have been collaborating and using the platform. The total marks for the students also did not have a significant difference because it was the average of the coursework and the final exam of which the final exam contributed more to the result. Using the coursework marks where collaboration also contributed to the marks is of importance. The results using these marks show that collaboration in an asynchronous group yields a positive impact as compared to the synchronous group. The asynchronous group is suitable to the Zimbabwean distance students.

Chapter 5

5. Conclusion

Collaborative learning in ICT text based synchronous and asynchronous communities is of much essence to the modern world learning. The universities and developing countries have been approaching this mode of learning have been met with both positive and negative outcomes. Many students especially in Zimbabwe still are satisfied with the traditional mode of learning. With such background, most students lack a strong IT background and although the interest is high collaboration using the synchronous text based is not ideal to the Zimbabwean distance learning. The Asynchronous collaborative learning suits well to the Zimbabwean distance education students and can play a major role in transforming e-learning and bring many students closer to their work and perform better. Synchronous collaborative learning need to take into effect the internet connection and usage. Many students in Zimbabwe, although the ICT is moving fast they have not connected to the internet even commercially or home use. The speed is still slow and this can affect collaboration in synchronous communities.

5.1 Recommendations and Future Work

The study took a constructivist approach and could be done on a common wide approach taking into consideration the introduction of multimedia to e-learning not only text based. Universities and Colleges need to implement e-learning on a fast pace starting with the asynchronous approach to distance learning. The introduction of multimedia to e-learning can play a positive role to distance learning especially the asynchronous approach were students can use multimedia facilities like Compact Disks.

APPENDIX 1 THE ASSIST Approaches to Studying (Asynchronous/Synchronous)

Please work through the following 18 comments, giving your immediate response. In deciding your answer, think in terms of a particular lecture course you are studying.

It is also very important that you answer all questions. 5 means I agree - 4 means I agree somewhat - 3 unsure -2 means I disagree somewhat – 1 means I disagree

Try not using 3 (unsure), unless you really have to or if it cannot apply to you or your course.

What is your name? (You may use student registration number)

What is your age, please only use numbers (e.g. 21)

What is your gender? Male Female

What is your field of study? Social sciences pure sciences communication sciences

What diploma level did you have before you started this new study programme? College diploma tertiary diploma other

1. Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really worthwhile . 5 4 3 2 1

2. When I’m reading an article or a book, try to find out for myself exactly what the author means 5 4 3 2 1

3. I organize my study time carefully to make the best use of it. 5 4 3 2 1

4. I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass. 5 4 3 2 1

5. I look carefully at tutor/lecturer‘s comments on coursework to see how to get higher marks next time. 5 4 3 2 1

6. Regularly, I find myself thinking about ideas from lectures when I am doing other things. 5 4 3 2 1

7. I am pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need to. 5 4 3 2 1

8. Much of what I am studying makes little sense: it’s like unrelated bits and pieces. 5 4 3 2 1

9. I put a lot of effort into studying because I am determined to do well. 5 4 3 2 1

10. When I am working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas fit together. 5 4 3 2 1

11. Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books. 5 4 3 2 1

12. I do not find it at all difficult to motivate myself. 5 4 3 2 1

13. I manage to find conditions for studying which allow me to get on with my work easily. 5 4 3 2 1

14. Often I am feeling I am drowning in the sheer amount of material we have to cope with. 5 4 3 2 1

15. Ideas in course books or in articles often set me off on long chains of thought of my own. 5 4 3 2 1

16. I often worry about whether I will ever be able to cope with the work properly. 5 4 3 2 1

17. When I read I examine the details carefully to see how they fit in with what is being said. 5 4 3 2 1

18. I often have trouble in making sense of things I have to remember. 5 4 3 2 1

Appendix 2

TASKS GIVEN TO VARIOUS GROUPS AT PROCESS STAGE

Synchronous Group 1(SG1) Question 1 A local hospital consists of many wards, each of which is assigned many patients. Each patient is assigned to one doctor, who has overall responsibility for the all the patients in his or her care. Other doctors are assigned on advisory basis. Each patient is prescribed drugs by the doctor responsible for that patient. Each nurse is assigned to a ward and is responsible for all patients on the ward, though is given special responsibility for some patients. Each patient is assigned a nurse in this position of responsibility. One doctor is attached to each ward as an overall medical advisor.

a).Name all the relationships and show all keys and draw an entity relationship diagram for this scenario. State any assumptions you have made. Show essential attributes for each entity, and indicate all primary and foreign and composite keys. (15 Marks) b).Produce tables from all the entities identified in (a) and populate each table with 5 records. (10 Marks)

Synchronous Group 2(SG2) Question 1 a) With examples, explain the functionality of each of the various schemas of database architecture. (13 Marks)

b).Define the terms Data Definition Language and Data Manipulation Language and clearly state the differences between them. (12 Marks)

Synchronous Group 3(SG3) Question 1 Discuss Information Systems issues. (25 marks)

Asynchronous Group 1(ASG1) Question 1 a) Define the terms 'Internet' and 'Intranet'. (6 Marks)

b) Explain the internet/intranet protocols a business would use and discuss, giving examples, how a small to a medium size business could use each protocol to increase their company profile and profit. (19 Marks)

Asynchronous Group 2(ASG2) Question 1 a) Discuss the features that are to be considered during interface design. (9 Marks) b) What is the purpose of POST_IMPLEMENTATION Audit and name the various systems areas that are considered during auditing. (10 Marks)

c) What are the various things to be done during the implementation stage of a system? (8 Marks)

Asynchronous Group 3(ASG3) Question 1 Discuss IS Concepts and its application to business (theories) (25 marks)

Control Group Question 1 In any organization, end users rely on many types of information systems. These systems might include: a) Simple manual (paper-and-pencil) information systems. b) Formal (written procedures) and informal (word-of-mouth) systems. c) Computer-based information systems. d) All of the above are information systems that are found in most organizations. Analyse and describe them. (25 marks)

APPENDIX 3

THE SATISFACTION

Please work through the following sections, giving your immediate response. In deciding your answer, think about the BIS course.

Try to answer all questions. If you have any further comments, please add them to the questionnaire on the last page. Thank you for your contribution.

Which group did you find yourself interacting mostly Synchronous Asynchronous

Section 1

5 Agree entirely

4 Agree

3 Not sure

2 Disagree

1 Disagree entirely Extra Links and Flexibility 1. I manage to have time to explore the e-learning platform 1 2 3 4 5

2. The links were not very essential in my course. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I managed to get more relevant information on the links. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I felt comfortable in the e-learning environment. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I did not bother to check what was on the e-learning platform. 1 2 3 4 5

Section 2

5 Agree entirely

4 Agree

3 Not sure

2 Disagree

1 Disagree entirely

Content Presentation 1. There was a lot of work and material needed to be discussed and 1 2 3 4 5 done.

2. I was comfortable with the structure of the course and content. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I found the course objectives clear and achievable. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I did study the content and discuss the content with my group members.

1 2 3 4 5

Section 3

5 Agree entirely

4 Agree

3 Not sure

2 Disagree

1 Disagree entirely

Learning environments 1. The presence of the e-moderator was helpful on the e-learning environment 1 2 3 4 5 2. The e-learning environment makes it easy for me to discuss questions with my peers and lecturers and/or tutors. 1 2 3 4 5

3. The learning environment makes it easy for me to share what I learn with the learning community. 1 2 3 4 5

4. The learning environment makes it easy for me to access the shared content from the learning community. 1 2 3 4 5

Section 4

5 Agree entirely

4 Agree

3 Not sure

2 Disagree

1 Disagree entirely

Feedback 1. The delivery of the lecture through hardware and its media was satisfactory. 1 2 3 4 5

2. There was a lack of organisation from the e-moderator in most aspects. 1 2 3 4 5

3. We were very much left to fend for ourselves with very little help or assistance. 1 2 3 4 5

4. We had no idea when to complete tasks and the e-moderator did not summarise the contributions, which had been made. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I found the whole thing extremely frustrating. 1 2 3 4 5

6. The feedback was positive and made me want to contribute more further and to research more into the subject that I was studying. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I felt encouraged when lecturer/moderator/tutor replied to our contributions, as I knew they had been read and our point of view has been considered. As this was our main form of communication, this contact was important. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I find it important that the e-learning lecturer/moderator provides direction in terms of managing the learning in terms of group tasks. 1 2 3 4 5

9. Providing summaries of these discussions is also useful. 1 2 3 4 5

Section 5

5 Agree entirely

4 Agree

3 Not sure

2 Disagree

1 Disagree entirely

Access 1. The e-learning system was difficult to access and use. 1 2 3 4 5

2. The speed of access to the e-learning system was slow when accessed from the university. 1 2 3 4 5

3. The speed of access to the e-learning system was slow when accessed from outside university. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Access of internet and email at University was difficult. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Access of internet and email at outside University was difficult. 1 2 3 4 5

6. We did consult the e-learning site or email regularly on feedbacks. 1 2 3 4 5

Section 6

5 Agree entirely

4 Agree

3 Not sure

2 Disagree

1 Disagree entirely Platform Usage 1. I enjoyed using the e-learning platform. 1 2 3 4 5

2. The orientation session prepared me adequately for the platform usage. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I preferred using other forms other than the e-learning platform. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I felt very close to my group mates regardless of distances apart when using the e-learning platform. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I would log to the e-learning platform daily to check group discussions. Experience is valuable. 1 2 3 4 5 Section 7

5 Agree entirely

4 Agree

3 Not sure

2 Disagree

1 Disagree entirely Collaboration and Support from other students 1. Our group made further reflection onto the activities that we were given. 1 2 3 4 5

2. My presence made discussion and collaboration easy to other fellow students in your discussion group. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I really wanted to join other discussion group other than my own. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I got less support from my other students. 1 2 3 4 5

5. The core students’ discussion answers sometimes were completely off task.

1 2 3 4 5

6. The other students did respect my position in discussion groups. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I read most of the contributions of other students. 1 2 3 4 5

8. The participation in the discussion groups was a good preparatory activity for the examinations. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Participation in discussion groups has helped me to learn to work together. 1 2 3 4 5

10. In participation in the discussion groups I learned a lot new ideas in relation to the course. 1 2 3 4 5

11. I dared to defend my position on the group. 1 2 3 4 5

Section 8

5 Agree entirely

4 Agree

3 Not sure

2 Disagree

1 Disagree entirely Interface 1. I found the e-learning environment attractive. 1 2 3 4 5

2. The e-learning platform provided good help. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I was able to explore the platform with easy. 1 2 3 4 5

4. The environment was user friendly. 1 2 3 4 5

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION (ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CAN BE WRITTEN OVERLEAF)

APPENDIX 4

Cronbach’’s Alpha Reliability for the ASSIST tool

Attitude to Learning: Reliability Notes | ------| ------| | Output Created | 01-FEB-2006 12:43:11 | ------| ------| | Comments | | | ------| ------| ------| | Input | Data | C:\Documents and Settings\Taurai\Desktop\dessertation\spss\analysis.sav | | | ------| ------| | | N of Rows in Working Data File | 64 | ------| ------| ------| | Syntax | RELIABILITY | | | /VARIABLES=q1 q5 q6 tot_att | | | /FORMAT=NOLABELS | | | /SCALE(ALPHA)=ALL/MODEL=ALPHA. | | | | | ------| ------| ------| Resources | Elapsed Time | 0:00:00.19 | | ------| ------| ------|

****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ****** R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .6838

Motivation: Reliability

Notes | ------| ------| | Output Created | 01-FEB-2006 12:47:23 | ------| ------| | Comments | | | ------| ------| ------|

| Input | Data | C:\Documents and Settings\Taurai\Desktop\dessertation\spss\analysis.sav | | | ------| ------| | ------| ------| | | N of Rows in Working Data File | 64 | | ------| ------| ------| | Syntax | RELIABILITY | | | /VARIABLES=q10 q12 tot_mot | | | /FORMAT=NOLABELS | | | /SCALE(ALPHA)=ALL/MODEL=ALPHA. | | | | ------| ------| ------| | Resources | Elapsed Time | 0:00:00.05 | | ------| ------| ------| ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ******

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 3 Alpha = .8030

Pressure: Reliability Notes | ------| ------| | Output Created | 01-FEB-2006 12:47:47 | ------| ------| | Comments | | | ------| ------| ------| | Input | Data | C:\Documents and Settings\Taurai\Desktop\dessertation\spss\analysis.sav | | | ------| ------| | | N of Rows in Working Data File | 64 | ------| ------| ------| | Syntax | RELIABILITY | | | /VARIABLES=q2 q13 q16 tot_pres | | | /FORMAT=NOLABELS | | | /SCALE(ALPHA)=ALL/MODEL=ALPHA. | | | ------| ------| ------| | Resources | Elapsed Time | 0:00:00.06 | | ------| ------| ------| ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ******

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .8574

Behaviour: Reliability Notes | ------| ------| | Output Created |01-FEB-2006 12:48:38 | ------| ------| | Comments | | | ------| ------| ------| | Input | Data | C:\Documents and Settings\Taurai\Desktop\dessertation\spss\analysis.sav | | | ------| ------| | | N of Rows in Working Data File | 64 | | ------| ------| ------| | Syntax | RELIABILITY | | | /VARIABLES=q8 q14 tot_beh | | | /FORMAT=NOLABELS | | | /SCALE(ALPHA)=ALL/MODEL=ALPHA. | | ------| ------| ------| | Resources | Elapsed Time | 0:00:00.08 | ------| ------| ------| ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ******

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 3 Alpha = .7887

Organization: Reliability Notes | ------| ------| | Output Created | 01-FEB-2006 12:56:03 | | ------| ------| | Comments | | | ------| ------| ------| | Input | Data | C:\Documents and Settings\Taurai\Desktop\dessertation\spss\analysis.sav | | | ------| ------| | | ------| ------| | | N of Rows in Working Data File | 64 | ------| ------| ------| | Syntax | RELIABILITY |

| | /VARIABLES=q3 q4 q7 q17 tot_org | | | /FORMAT=NOLABELS | | | /SCALE (ALPHA)=ALL/MODEL=ALPHA. ------| ------| ------| | Resources | Elapsed Time | 0:00:00.05 | ------| ------| ------| ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ******

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 5 Alpha = .2973

Feedback on Work: Reliability Notes | ------| ------| | Output Created |01-FEB-2006 13:36:23 | ------| ------| | Comments | | | ------| ------| ------| | Input | Data | C:\Documents and Settings\Taurai\Desktop\dessertation\spss\analysis.sav | | | ------| ------| | | N of Rows in Working Data File | 64 | | ------| ------| ------| | Syntax | RELIABILITY | | | /VARIABLES=q9 q11 q18 tot_feed | | | /FORMAT=NOLABELS | | | /SCALE(ALPHA)=ALL/MODEL=ALPHA. | | | ------| ------| ------| | Resources | Elapsed Time | 0:00:00.49 | ------| ------| ------| ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ****** R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 64.0 N of Items = 4 Alpha = .6442

Appendix 5 a Group: One-way ANOVA

ANOVA

Sum of Mean df F Sig. Squares Square

Attitudes to Learning : Q1 Often I Between Groups .267 1 .267 .883 .351 find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really Within Groups 18.733 62 .302 worthwhile Total 19.000 63

Between Groups .459 1 .459 1.251 .268 Q5. I look carefully at tutor/lecturer 's comments on coursework to see Within Groups 22.775 62 .367 how to get higher marks next Total 23.234 63

Between Groups .504 1 .504 .522 .473 Q6.Regularly, I find myself thinking about ideas from lectures Within Groups 59.933 62 .967 when I am doing other things. Total 60.438 63

Between Groups .126 1 .126 .338 .563 Organization : Q3.I organize my study time carefully to make the Within Groups 23.108 62 .373 best use of it. Total 23.234 63

Between Groups .504 1 .504 .351 .555 Q4.I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass. Within Groups 88.933 62 1.434 Total 89.438 63

2.604E- Between Groups 1 2.604E-02 .058 .810 02 Q7.I am pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need to. Within Groups 27.708 62 .447

Total 27.734 63

Between Groups .417 1 .417 .503 .481 Q17.When I read I examine the details carefully to see how they fit Within Groups 51.333 62 .828 in with what is being said. Total 51.750 63

Motivation : 10. When I am Between Groups .704 1 .704 1.059 .307 working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas Within Groups 41.233 62 .665 fit together. Total 41.938 63

Q12.I do not find it at all difficult Between Groups .338 1 .338 .464 .498

87 to motivate myself. Within Groups 45.100 62 .727

Total 45.437 63

Pressure : Q2. When I'm reading Between Groups .651 1 .651 1.234 .271 an article or a book, try to find out for myself exactly what the author Within Groups 32.708 62 .528 means Total 33.359 63

Between Groups .204 1 .204 .354 .554 Q13.I manage to find conditions for studying which allow me to get on Within Groups 35.733 62 .576 with my work easily. Total 35.938 63

2.604E- Between Groups 1 2.604E-02 .049 .826 Q16.I often worry about whether I 02 will ever be able to cope with the work properly. Within Groups 33.208 62 .536 Total 33.234 63

2.604E- Between Groups 1 2.604E-02 .090 .765 Feedback on Work: Q9.I put a lot 02 of effort into studying because I am determined to do well. Within Groups 17.958 62 .290 Total 17.984 63

3.750E- Between Groups 1 3.750E-02 .083 .774 Q11.Often I find myself 02 questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books. Within Groups 27.900 62 .450 Total 27.938 63

Between Groups 1.838 1 1.838 2.498 .119 Q18.I often have trouble in making sense of things I have to remember. Within Groups 45.600 62 .735 Total 47.438 63

Between Groups .376 1 .376 .743 .392 Behaviour : Q8.Much of what I am studying make little sense: its like Within Groups 31.358 62 .506 unrelated bits and pieces. Total 31.734 63

1.042E- Between Groups 1 1.042E-03 .002 .963 Q14.Often I am feeling I am 03 drowning in the sheer amount of material we have to cope with. Within Groups 29.858 62 .482 Total 29.859 63

Appendix 5 b ANOVA

Sum of Mean df F Sig. Squares Square

Attitudes to Learning : Q1 Often I Between Groups 1.944 2 .972 3.477 .037 find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really Within Groups 17.056 61 .280 worthwhile Total 19.000 63

Between Groups 1.460 2 .730 2.045 .138 Q5. I look carefully at tutor/lecturer 's comments on coursework to see Within Groups 21.774 61 .357 how to get higher marks next Total 23.234 63

Between Groups 1.141 2 .570 .587 .559 Q6.Regularly, I find myself thinking about ideas from lectures when I am Within Groups 59.297 61 .972 doing other things. Total 60.438 63

Between Groups .606 2 .303 .817 .447 Organization : Q3.I organize my study time carefully to make the best Within Groups 22.628 61 .371 use of it. Total 23.234 63

8.661E- Between Groups .173 2 .059 .943 Q4.I concentrate on learning just 02 those bits of information I have to know to pass. Within Groups 89.264 61 1.463 Total 89.438 63

Between Groups .661 2 .331 .745 .479 Q7.I am pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need to. Within Groups 27.073 61 .444 Total 27.734 63

Between Groups .580 2 .290 .346 .709 Q17.When I read I examine the details carefully to see how they fit Within Groups 51.170 61 .839 in with what is being said. Total 51.750 63

Motivation: 10. When I am Between Groups .221 2 .111 .162 .851 working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas fit Within Groups 41.716 61 .684 together. Total 41.938 63

Q12.I do not find it at all difficult to Between Groups 2.293 2 1.147 1.621 .206 motivate myself. Within Groups 43.144 61 .707

Total 45.438 63

Pressure : Q2. When I'm reading an Between Groups .346 2 .173 .320 .728 article or a book, try to find out for myself exactly what the author Within Groups 33.013 61 .541 means Total 33.359 63

Between Groups .913 2 .456 .795 .456 Q13.I manage to find conditions for studying which allow me to get on Within Groups 35.025 61 .574 with my work easily. Total 35.938 63

6.190E- Between Groups .124 2 .114 .892 Q16.I often worry about whether I 02 will ever be able to cope with the work properly. Within Groups 33.111 61 .543 Total 33.234 63

6.458E- Between Groups 1.292E-02 2 .022 .978 Feedback on Work : Q9.I put a lot 03 of effort into studying because I am determined to do well. Within Groups 17.971 61 .295 Total 17.984 63

3.302E- Between Groups 6.604E-02 2 .072 .930 Q11.Often I find myself questioning 02 things I hear in lectures or read in books. Within Groups 27.871 61 .457 Total 27.938 63

Between Groups 1.773 2 .887 1.184 .313 Q18.I often have trouble in making sense of things I have to remember. Within Groups 45.664 61 .749 Total 47.437 63

Between Groups 1.739 2 .870 1.769 .179 Behaviour : Q8.Much of what I am studying make little sense: its like Within Groups 29.995 61 .492 unrelated bits and pieces. Total 31.734 63

Between Groups .979 2 .489 1.034 .362 Q14.Often I am feeling I am drowning in the sheer amount of Within Groups 28.881 61 .473 material we have to cope with. Total 29.859 63

Appendix 6 a: 1

Gender: One-way ANOVA ANOVA

Sum of Mean df F Sig. Squares Square

Attitudes to Learning: Q1 Between Groups .619 1 .619 2.087 .154 Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing Within Groups 18.381 62 .296 here is really worthwhile Total 19.000 63

Q5. I look carefully at Between Groups .958 1 .958 2.667 .107 tutor/lecturer 's comments on coursework to see how to get Within Groups 22.276 62 .359 higher marks next Total 23.234 63

Q6.Regularly, I find myself Between Groups .456 1 .456 .472 .495 thinking about ideas from lectures when I am doing other Within Groups 59.981 62 .967 things. Total 60.438 63

Between Groups 1.332E-02 1 1.332E-02 .036 .851 Organization: Q3.I organize my study time carefully to Within Groups 23.221 62 .375 make the best use of it. Total 23.234 63

Between Groups 2.039 1 2.039 1.446 .234 Q4.I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I Within Groups 87.399 62 1.410 have to know to pass. Total 89.437 63

Between Groups 3.379E-02 1 3.379E-02 .076 .784 Q7.I am pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need Within Groups 27.701 62 .447 to. Total 27.734 63

Q17.When I read I examine the Between Groups .183 1 .183 .220 .641 details carefully to see how they fit in with what is being Within Groups 51.567 62 .832 said. Total 51.750 63

Motivation: 10. When I am Between Groups .190 1 .190 .282 .597 working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the Within Groups 41.747 62 .673 ideas fit together. Total 41.937 63

Q12.I do not find it at all Between Groups .221 1 .221 .303 .584

91 difficult to motivate myself. Within Groups 45.216 62 .729

Total 45.437 63

Pressure : Q2. When I'm Between Groups .992 1 .992 1.900 .173 reading an article or a book, try to find out for myself exactly Within Groups 32.367 62 .522 what the author means Total 33.359 63

Q13.I manage to find Between Groups 6.579E-04 1 6.579E-04 .001 .973 conditions for studying which allow me to get on with my Within Groups 35.937 62 .580 work easily. Total 35.938 63

Between Groups 2.502E-02 1 2.502E-02 .047 .830 Q16.I often worry about whether I will ever be able to Within Groups 33.209 62 .536 cope with the work properly. Total 33.234 63

Feedback on Work : Q9.I put a Between Groups 4.753E-02 1 4.753E-02 .164 .687 lot of effort into studying because I am determined to do Within Groups 17.937 62 .289 well. Total 17.984 63

Between Groups 6.579E-04 1 6.579E-04 .001 .970 Q11.Often I find myself questioning things I hear in Within Groups 27.937 62 .451 lectures or read in books. Total 27.937 63

Between Groups .111 1 .111 .146 .704 Q18.I often have trouble in making sense of things I have Within Groups 47.326 62 .763 to remember. Total 47.438 63

Behaviour : Q8.Much of what I Between Groups 8.059E-03 1 8.059E-03 .016 .901 am studying make little sense: its like unrelated bits and Within Groups 31.726 62 .512 pieces. Total 31.734 63

Q14.Often I am feeling I am Between Groups .194 1 .194 .405 .527 drowning in the sheer amount of material we have to cope Within Groups 29.665 62 .478 with. Total 29.859 63

Appendix 6a:2

Post Hoc Tests

Homogeneous Subsets

Attitudes to Learning: Q1 Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really worthwhile Tukey B

Subset for alpha = .05

N Previous Field_of_Study 1 2

Pure Sciences 11 2.09

Social Sciences 43 2.37 2.37

Communication Sciences 10 2.70

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008.

b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Q5. I look carefully at tutor/lecturer 's comments on coursework to see how to get higher marks next Tukey B

Subset for alpha = .05

N Previous Field_of_Study 1

Pure Sciences 11 4.09

Social Sciences 43 4.42

Communication Sciences 10 4.60

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008.

b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Q17.When I read I examine the details Q13.I manage to find conditions for studying carefully to see how they fit in with what is which allow me to get on with my work easily. being said. Tukey B Tukey B Subset for Subset for alpha = .05 N alpha = .05 Previous Field_of_Study N 1 Previous Field_of_Study 1 Communication Sciences 10 4.20

Communication Pure Sciences 11 4.45 10 3.60 Sciences Social Sciences 43 4.53 Social Sciences 43 3.84 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are Pure Sciences 11 3.91 displayed.

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008. displayed. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008. mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Q6.Regularly, I find myself thinking about ideas from lectures when I am doing other things. Q7.I am pretty good at getting down to Tukey B work whenever I need to. Subset for Tukey B alpha = Subset N .05 for alpha

= .05 Previous Field_of_Study N 1

Field_of_Study 1 Social Sciences 43 3.28

Communication Sciences 10 3.30 Pure Sciences 11 3.64 Pure Sciences 11 3.64 Communication 10 3.90 Sciences Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Social Sciences 43 3.91 a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = levels are not guaranteed. 14.008.

b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. 94

Q4.I concentrate on learning just those bits of Pressure : Q2. When I'm reading an article or

information I have to know to pass. a book, try to find out for myself exactly what

Tukey B the author means

Tukey B Subset

for alpha Subset for N = .05 alpha = .05

Previous Field_of_Study N 1 Previous Field_of_Study 1

Communication Sciences 10 3.00

Pure Sciences 11 4.55 Social Sciences 43 3.09

Communication Pure Sciences 11 3.18 10 4.70 Sciences Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are Social Sciences 43 4.74 displayed. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008. displayed. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008. mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error Behaviour: Q8.Much of what I am studying levels are not guaranteed. make little sense: its like unrelated bits and pieces. Tukey B

Subset for alpha = .05 N Previous Field_of_Study 1

Social Sciences 43 2.74

Pure Sciences 11 3.09

Communication 10 3.10 Sciences

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008.

b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Motivation : 10. When I am working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas fit together. Tukey B

Subset for alpha = N .05 Previous Field_of_Study 1

Pure Sciences 11 3.91

Social Sciences 43 4.05 Communication 10 4.10 Sciences

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008.

b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Organization: Q3.I organize my study time carefully to make the best use of it. Tukey B

Subset for alpha = .05

N Previous Field_of_Study 1

Pure Sciences 11 4.27

Social Sciences 43 4.37 Communication Sciences 10 4.60

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 14.008. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Appendix 6.a: 3 Age Group: One way ANOVA ANOVA

Sum of Mean df F Sig. Squares Square

Attitudes to Learning: Q1 Often I Between Groups 2.881 4 .720 2.636 .043 find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really Within Groups 16.119 59 .273 worthwhile Total 19.000 63

Between Groups .524 4 .131 .341 .849 Q5. I look carefully at tutor/lecturer 's comments on coursework to see Within Groups 22.710 59 .385 how to get higher marks next Total 23.234 63

Between Groups 1.996 4 .499 .504 .733 Q6.Regularly, I find myself thinking about ideas from lectures Within Groups 58.442 59 .991 when I am doing other things. Total 60.437 63

Between Groups .774 4 .194 .508 .730 Organization: Q3.I organize my study time carefully to make the Within Groups 22.460 59 .381 best use of it. Total 23.234 63

Between Groups 20.620 4 5.155 4.420 .003 Q4.I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to Within Groups 68.817 59 1.166 know to pass. Total 89.438 63

Between Groups 6.097 4 1.524 4.156 .005 Q7.I am pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need to. Within Groups 21.637 59 .367 Total 27.734 63

Between Groups 8.691 4 2.173 2.977 .026 Q17.When I read I examine the details carefully to see how they fit Within Groups 43.059 59 .730 in with what is being said. Total 51.750 63

Motivation : 10. When I am Between Groups 1.482 4 .371 .540 .707 working on a new topic, I try to see in my own mind how all the ideas Within Groups 40.455 59 .686 fit together. Total 41.938 63

Between Groups 3.335 4 .834 1.169 .334 Q12.I do not find it at all difficult to motivate myself. Within Groups 42.102 59 .714 Total 45.438 63

Pressure : Q2. When I'm reading an Between Groups .694 4 .173 .313 .868 article or a book, try to find out for myself exactly what the author Within Groups 32.666 59 .554 means Total 33.359 63

Between Groups 3.403 4 .851 1.543 .202 Q13.I manage to find conditions for studying which allow me to get Within Groups 32.534 59 .551 on with my work easily. Total 35.938 63

Between Groups .750 4 .187 .341 .850 Q16.I often worry about whether I will ever be able to cope with the Within Groups 32.484 59 .551 work properly. Total 33.234 63

Between Groups 1.967 4 .492 1.811 .139 Feedback on Work: Q9.I put a lot of effort into studying because I am Within Groups 16.017 59 .271 determined to do well. Total 17.984 63

Between Groups 1.206 4 .301 .665 .619 Q11.Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures Within Groups 26.732 59 .453 or read in books. Total 27.938 63

Between Groups 2.404 4 .601 .788 .538 Q18.I often have trouble in making sense of things I have to remember. Within Groups 45.033 59 .763 Total 47.438 63

Between Groups .892 4 .223 .427 .789 Behaviour: Q8.Much of what I am studying make little sense: its like Within Groups 30.842 59 .523 unrelated bits and pieces. Total 31.734 63

Between Groups 3.009 4 .752 1.653 .173 Q14.Often I am feeling I am drowning in the sheer amount of Within Groups 26.850 59 .455 material we have to cope with. Total 29.859 63

Q6.Regularly, I find myself thinking about ideas from lectures when I am doing other things. Tukey B

Subset for

alpha = Q5. I look carefully at tutor/lecturer 's N .05 comments on coursework to see how to get higher marks next AGEGRO 1 Tukey B

Subset for 36-40 years 13 3.08 alpha = .05 N 30 years and below` 19 3.32 AGEGRO 1 Above 45 years 3 3.33

31-35 years 22 3.41 36-40 years 13 4.31

41-45 years 7 3.71 30 years and below` 19 4.32

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are 41-45 years 7 4.43 displayed. 31-35 years 22 4.45 a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 7.678. Above 45 years 3 4.67 b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error displayed. levels are not guaranteed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 7.678. Attitudes to Learning: Q1 Often I find myself b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic wondering whether the work I am doing here mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error is really worthwhile levels are not guaranteed. Tukey B

Subset for alpha = .05 N Organization: Q3.I organize my study time carefully AGEGRO 1 2 to make the best use of it. Tukey B

31-35 years 22 2.14 Subset for alpha = .05 36-40 years 13 2.38 2.38 N AGEGRO 30 years and below` 19 2.47 2.47 1

41-45 years 7 2.57 2.57 30 years and below` 19 4.26 Above 45 years 3 3.00 36-40 years 13 4.38 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are 31-35 years 22 4.41 displayed. 41-45 years 7 4.57 a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 7.678. Above 45 years 3 4.67 b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. levels are not guaranteed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 7.678. 99 b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Appendix 6.a:4

PREVIOUS LEVEL OF EDUCATION : ONEWAYANOVA

Sum of Mean df F Sig. Squares Square

Between Groups .487 2 .244 .803 .453 Attitudes to Learning: Q1 Often I find myself wondering whether the work I Within Groups 18.513 61 .303 am doing here is really worthwhile Total 19.000 63

Between Groups 1.360 2 .680 1.897 .159 Q5. I look carefully at tutor/lecturer 's comments on coursework to see how to Within Groups 21.874 61 .359 get higher marks next Total 23.234 63

Between Groups 1.832 2 .916 .953 .391 Q6.Regularly, I find myself thinking about ideas from lectures when I am Within Groups 58.606 61 .961 doing other things. Total 60.438 63

Between Groups .767 2 .384 1.042 .359 Organization: Q3.I organize my study time carefully to make the best use of Within Groups 22.467 61 .368 it. Total 23.234 63

Between Groups 1.451 2 .726 .503 .607 Q4.I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to Within Groups 87.986 61 1.442 pass. Total 89.437 63

Between Groups .927 2 .464 1.055 .354 Q7.I am pretty good at getting down to work whenever I need to. Within Groups 26.807 61 .439 Total 27.734 63

Between Groups 3.137 2 1.568 1.968 .149 Q17.When I read I examine the details carefully to see how they fit in with Within Groups 48.613 61 .797 what is being said. Total 51.750 63

Between Groups 1.018 2 .509 .759 .472 Motivation : 10. When I am working on a new topic, I try to see in my own Within Groups 40.919 61 .671 mind how all the ideas fit together. Total 41.938 63

Q12.I do not find it at all diffic ult to Between Groups 2.393 2 1.197 1.696 .192

100 motivate myself. Within Groups 43.044 61 .706

Total 45.438 63

5.311E- Between Groups .106 2 .097 .907 Pressure : Q2. When I'm reading an 02 article or a book, try to find out for myself exactly what the author means Within Groups 33.253 61 .545 Total 33.359 63

Between Groups 1.523 2 .761 1.350 .267 Q13.I manage to find conditions for studying which allow me to get on with Within Groups 34.415 61 .564 my work easily. Total 35.938 63

Between Groups .447 2 .223 .416 .662 Q16.I often worry about whether I will ever be able to cope with the work Within Groups 32.788 61 .538 properly. Total 33.234 63

Between Groups .670 2 .335 1.180 .314 Feedback on Work: Q9.I put a lot of effort into studying because I am Within Groups 17.315 61 .284 determined to do well. Total 17.984 63

Between Groups .340 2 .170 .376 .688 Q11.Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in Within Groups 27.597 61 .452 books. Total 27.938 63

Between Groups .733 2 .366 .478 .622 Q18.I often have trouble in making sense of things I have to remember. Within Groups 46.705 61 .766 Total 47.438 63

Between Groups .883 2 .442 .873 .423 Behaviour: Q8.Much of what I am studying make little sense: its like Within Groups 30.851 61 .506 unrelated bits and pieces. Total 31.734 63

Between Groups .680 2 .340 .711 .495 Q14.Often I am feeling I am drowning in the sheer amount of material we Within Groups 29.179 61 .478 have to cope with. Total 29.859 63

101

Appendix 7

Satisfaction Model Analysis GROUPS: ONEWAY ANOVA

Mean Sum of Squares df F Sig. Square

Between Groups 5.833 1 5.833 9.802 .003 Extra Links and Flexibility: Q1 I manage to have time to explore the Within Groups 40.467 68 .595 e-learning platform Total 46.300 69

Between Groups .144 1 .144 .113 .738 2. The links were not very essential in my course. Within Groups 86.942 68 1.279 Total 87.086 69

Between Groups 2.001 1 2.001 2.523 .117 3. I managed to get more relevant information on the links. Within Groups 53.942 68 .793 Total 55.943 69

Between Groups .233 1 .233 .171 .680 4. I felt comfortable in the e-learning environment Within Groups 92.567 68 1.361 Total 92.800 69

Between Groups 39.868 1 39.868 96.563 .000 5. I did not bother to check what was on the e-learning platform. Within Groups 28.075 68 .413 Total 67.943 69

Between Groups 8.805 1 8.805 1.916 .171

TOT_EXT Within Groups 312.467 68 4.595

Total 321.271 69

Between Groups 6.519 1 6.519 6.247 .015 Content Presentation: Q1. There was a lot of work and material needed to Within Groups 70.967 68 1.044 be discussed and done Total 77.486 69

2. I was comfortable with the Between Groups 4.430 1 4.430 4.401 .040

102 structure of the course and content. Within Groups 68.442 68 1.006

Total 72.871 69

Between Groups 2.001 1 2.001 4.274 .043 3. I found the course objectives clear and achievable. Within Groups 31.842 68 .468 Total 33.843 69

Between Groups .386 1 .386 .476 .493 4. I did study the content and discuss the content with my group members. Within Groups 55.100 68 .810 Total 55.486 69

Between Groups 14.933 1 14.933 2.514 .117

TOT_CON Within Groups 403.867 68 5.939

Total 418.800 69

5.833E- Between Groups 5.833E-02 1 .063 .803 Learning Envirinments: Q1.The 02 presence of the e-moderator was helpful on the e-learning Within Groups 63.142 68 .929 environment Total 63.200 69

2.The e-learning environment makes Between Groups 4.286 1 4.286 6.405 .014 it easy for me to discuss questions with my peers and lecturers and/or Within Groups 45.500 68 .669 tutors Total 49.786 69

Between Groups 6.171 1 6.171 17.782 .000 3.The learning environment makes it easy for me to share what I learn Within Groups 23.600 68 .347 with the learning community Total 29.771 69

4.The learning environment makes it Between Groups .744 1 .744 .631 .430 easy for me to access the shared content from the learning Within Groups 80.242 68 1.180 community Total 80.986 69

9.643E- Between Groups 9.643E-02 1 .031 .860 02 TOT_LE Within Groups 209.175 68 3.076

Total 209.271 69

Between Groups 1.543 1 1.543 4.230 .044 Feedback: The delivery of the lecture through hardware nd its Within Groups 24.800 68 .365 media was satisfactory Total 26.343 69

2. There was a lack of organisation Between Groups 6.001 1 6.001 8.530 .005

103 from the e-moderator in most Within Groups 47.842 68 .704 aspects. Total 53.843 69

Between Groups .933 1 .933 1.659 .202 3. We were very much left to fend for ourselves with very little help or Within Groups 38.267 68 .563 assistance Total 39.200 69

4. We had no idea when to complete Between Groups 1.144 1 1.144 2.246 .139 tasks and the e-moderator did not summarise the contributions which Within Groups 34.642 68 .509 have been made Total 35.786 69

Between Groups 22.671 1 22.671 22.440 .000 5. I found the whole thing extremely frustrating. Within Groups 68.700 68 1.010 Total 91.371 69

6. The feedback was positive and Between Groups 1.543 1 1.543 2.851 .096 made me want to contribute more further and to research more into the Within Groups 36.800 68 .541 subject that I was studying. Total 38.343 69

7. I felt encouraged when Between Groups 4.430 1 4.430 4.500 .038 lecturer/moderator/tutor replied to our contributions, as I knew they Within Groups 66.942 68 .984 had been read and our point of view has been considered. As this was our main form of communication, this Total 71.371 69 contact was important.

8. I find it important that the e- Between Groups 9.219 1 9.219 21.347 .000 learning lecturer/moderator provides direction in terms of managing the Within Groups 29.367 68 .432 learning in terms of group tasks. Total 38.586 69

Between Groups 27.144 1 27.144 48.648 .000 9. Providing summaries of these discussions is also useful. Within Groups 37.942 68 .558 Total 65.086 69

Between Groups 53.001 1 53.001 2.738 .103

TOT_FDB Within Groups 1316.442 68 19.359

Total 1369.443 69

Mean Sum of Squares df F Sig. Square

Access: Q1. The e -learning system Between Groups 1.144 1 1.144 1.774 .187

104 was difficult to access Within Groups 43.842 68 .645

Total 44.986 69

Between Groups 6.696 1 6.696 8.778 .004 2. The speed of access to the e- learning system was slow when Within Groups 51.875 68 .763 accessed from the university. Total 58.571 69

Between Groups 5.833 1 5.833 15.637 .000 3. The speed of access to the e- learning system was slow when Within Groups 25.367 68 .373 accessed from outside university. Total 31.200 69

Between Groups 1.811 1 1.811 1.961 .166 4. Access of internet and email at University was difficult. Within Groups 62.775 68 .923 Total 64.586 69

Between Groups 21.696 1 21.696 83.471 .000 5. Access of internet and email at outside University was difficult. Within Groups 17.675 68 .260 Total 39.371 69

Between Groups 23.333 1 23.333 41.901 .000 6. We did consult the e-learning site or email regularly on feedbacks. Within Groups 37.867 68 .557 Total 61.200 69

Between Groups 3.733 1 3.733 .191 .664

TOT_ACC Within Groups 1332.567 68 19.597

Total 1336.300 69

Between Groups 3.601 1 3.601 2.853 .096 Platform Usage: Q1. I enjoyed using the e-learning platform Within Groups 85.842 68 1.262 Total 89.443 69

Between Groups 13.630 1 13.630 15.645 .000 2. The orientation session prepared me adequately for the platform Within Groups 59.242 68 .871 usage. Total 72.871 69

Between Groups 4.144 1 4.144 4.822 .032 3. I preferred using other forms other than the e-learning platform. Within Groups 58.442 68 .859 Total 62.586 69

4. I felt very close to my group Between Groups 16.296 1 16.296 15.769 .000 mates regardless of distances apart when using the e -learning platform. Within Groups 70.275 68 1.033

105 when using the e-learning platform. Total 86.571 69

Between Groups 44.344 1 44.344 47.756 .000 5. I would log to the e-learning platform daily to check group Within Groups 63.142 68 .929 discussions experience is valuable. Total 107.486 69

Between Groups 18.011 1 18.011 1.345 .250

TOT_PUS Within Groups 910.575 68 13.391

Total 928.586 69

Collaboration and Support from Between Groups .430 1 .430 .836 .364 other Students:Q1.Our Group made further reflection onto the activities Within Groups 34.942 68 .514 that we were given Total 35.371 69

Q2. My presence made discussion Between Groups 2.411 1 2.411 1.778 .187 and collaboration easy to other fellow students in my discussion Within Groups 92.175 68 1.356 group Total 94.586 69

Between Groups 10.744 1 10.744 30.138 .000 3. I really wanted to join other discussion group other than my own. Within Groups 24.242 68 .356 Total 34.986 69

Between Groups 9.219 1 9.219 21.945 .000 4. I got less support from my other students. Within Groups 28.567 68 .420 Total 37.786 69

Between Groups 14.668 1 14.668 15.280 .000 5. The core students' discussion answers sometimes were completely Within Groups 65.275 68 .960 off task. Total 79.943 69

Between Groups .805 1 .805 1.790 .185 6. The other students did respect my position in discussion groups. Within Groups 30.567 68 .450 Total 31.371 69

Between Groups 10.296 1 10.296 8.050 .006 7. I read most of the contributions of other students Within Groups 86.975 68 1.279 Total 97.271 69

Between Groups 15.744 1 15.744 33.413 .000 8. The participation in the discussion groups was a good preparatory Within Groups 32.042 68 .471 activity for the examinations. Total 47.786 69

106

Between Groups 14.144 1 14.144 18.733 .000 9. Participation in discussion groups has helped me to learn to work Within Groups 51.342 68 .755 together. Total 65.486 69

Between Groups .119 1 .119 .121 .729 10. In participation in the discussion groups I learned a lot new ideas in Within Groups 66.867 68 .983 relation to the course. Total 66.986 69

Between Groups 35.219 1 35.219 52.214 .000 11. I dared to defend my position on the group Within Groups 45.867 68 .675 Total 81.086 69

Between Groups 95.344 1 95.344 2.708 .104

TOT_COS Within Groups 2394.142 68 35.208

Total 2489.486 69

Between Groups .119 1 .119 .086 .771 Interface: Q1 I found the e-learning environment attractive Within Groups 94.467 68 1.389 Total 94.586 69

Between Groups 2.858 1 2.858 5.233 .025 Q2. The e-learning platform provided good help Within Groups 37.142 68 .546 Total 40.000 69

Between Groups .268 1 .268 .358 .552 Q3. I was able to explore the platform with easy Within Groups 50.875 68 .748 Total 51.143 69

Between Groups 9.858 1 9.858 9.955 .002 Q4. The environment was user friendly Within Groups 67.342 68 .990 Total 77.200 69

Between Groups 35.630 1 35.630 2.244 .139

TOT_INT Within Groups 1079.642 68 15.877

Total 1115.271 69

107

REFERENCE

Alexander, S. (2001) E-learning experiences, Education + Training, Volume 43, Number 4/5, pp. 240-248.

ALT, 2003. A bullet point paper for the JIG from the Association for Learning Technology (ALT).

Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. (1999). ‘New Roles for Learners at a distance’, in C. Gibson (ed.), Distance Learning in higher Education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes, Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Arbaugh, J.B. (2000).Managing the online classroom: A study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses. The Journal of High Technology Management research, 13,203-223.

Atwere, D., 2002. A Survey into ILT/ICT skills Training in UK Further Education Colleges, CITSCAPES Phase II, LSDA.

Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G ., & Geva, A.(2003).Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks .Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 7, 1-23.

Basturkmen, H. (2003).So what happens when the tutor walks in? Some observations on interaction in a university discussion group without the tutor. Journal of English for Academic purposes, 2, 21-33.

Berge, Z. (1996) Characteristics of online teaching in post-secondary formal education, eModerators, Berge Collins Associates.

Berge Z & Collins, M. (1995).Computer –Mediated Scholarly Discussion groups. Computers and education, 24, 183 -189.

108

Biesenbach – Lucas, S. (2003) .Asynchronous discussion groups in teacher training classes : perceptions of native and non native students . Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 7, 24-46.

Childs, M. (2003) E-tutoring in synchronous and asynchronous environments, Interactions, Centre for Academic Practice, University of Warwick.

CISCO(2002). Available at:http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10 /wwtraining/elearning/

Coppola, N.W., Hiltz, S.R. and Rotter, N.G. (2002) Becoming a Virtual Professor: Pedagogical Roles and Asynchronous Learning Networks, Journal of Management Information Systems, Spring, Volume 18, Number 4, pp. 169-189.

Cox, E.S., Clark, W.P., Heath, H. and Plumpton, B. (2000) Key Facilitation Skills for Effective Online Discussion Groups: Herding Cats through Piccadilly Circus, International Distance Education and Open Learning Conference, University of South Australia.

Davies, S., 2003. ILT in Further Education: laying the foundations for e-learning. Available at http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?page=13&resID=5854

Denard, H. (2003) E-Tutoring and Transformations in Online Learning, Interactions, Centre for Academic Practice, University of Warwick.

Dennen, V.P. (2000). Task structuring for on-line problem-based learning: A case study Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 329-336.

Duch, B.J. (2001). Writing problems for deeper understanding. In B.J. Duch, S.E. Groh & D.E. Allen (Eds.). The Power of Problem-Based Learning. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, pp. 47- 54.

Drago, W., Peltier, J. and Sorensen, D. (2002) Course Content or the Instructor: Which is More Important in On-line Teaching? Management Research News, Volume 25, Number 6/7, pp. 69-83.

Edelson, D.C., Pea, R.D. & Gomez, L. (1996) Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B G Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist Learning Environment: Case Studies in Instructional Design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publication Inc, pp. 151-164.

109

Fauziah Sulaiman, +Hanafi Atan, +Rozhan M Idrus & *Hisham Dzakiria School of Science and Technology Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia and +School of Distance Education Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. & Turoff, M. (1997). Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hiltz, S.R., Cappola, N., Rotter, N. & Turoff, M. (1999). Measuring the importance of collaboration learning for effectiveness ALN: a multi-measure, multi-method approach. In J. Bourne (Ed). Online Education: Learning Effectiveness and Faculty Satisfaction. Center for Asynchronous Learning Networks, Needham, MA, 1, 101-120.

Hughes, J., & Attwell, G. (2003). A framework for the Evaluation of E-Learning, 2003, European Seminar Series on Exploring Models and Partnerships for eLearning in SMEs, Brussels.

Jonassen, D.H. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technology: A vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational Technology, 35(2), 60-63.

Kiernan, M., Thomas, P. and Woodroffe, M. (2001) Does the medium dictate the message? Cultivating e-communication in an asynchronous environment, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes.

Kyong-Jee Kim and Curtis J. Bonk, Indiana University, Bloomington; TingTing Zeng, Warwick University, Coventry, UK. Surveying the Future of Workplace E- learning: The Rise of Blending, Interactivity, and Authentic Learning.

Lim, C.P., 2002. A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools a proposal. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp 411-421.

Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: Definition, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.

McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J. (2002). A learner-centered approach to developing team skills through web-based learning and assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 71-82.

110

Naiga Basaza, G., Valcke, M., & Katahoire, A.R. (2003) .ICT use in distance teacher education in selected universities in Uganda :A myth or reality?

Nestle, D., Kneebone, R., & Martin, S. (2003). Inter –Profession learning: discussion groups in a manor surgery skills course for nurses. Nurse Education in Practice, in press.

Newlands, D., Mclean, A., & Lovie, F. (1997) .The role of interacting technologies in Distance learning. In Budapest, Hungary: European Distance Education Network.

Offir, B., Barth, I., Lev, Y., & Shteinbok, A. (2004). Teacher –student interactions and learning outcomes in distance learning environment. The internet and higher education, 6, 65-75.

Oliver, M. & Shaw, G. P (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 7, 56-65.

Omwenga E. I (2003) unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Modelling and analysing a Computer- mediated learning infrastructure. School of Computing and Informatics, University of Nairobi.

Omwenga, E., Waema, T., & Eisendrath, G. (June 2005). Development and Application of an Objectives-driven E-content Structuring and Deployment Model (ODC- SDM). World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. ED-MEDIA 2005, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Montreal, Canada.

Omwenga, E., Waema, T., & Wagacha, P. (June 2004). A model for introducing and implementing e- learning for delivery of educational content within the African context. African Journal of Sciences and Technology 5(1) 35-48.

Omwenga, E.I. (April 2005). A VLIR (Belgium) Report on the Training workshop on e- Content Development for faculty Science University Staff. Kenya Wildlife Services Training Institute, Naivasha, Kenya. 29 th March – 2nd April 2005.

O’Malley, J. and McCraw, H. (1999) Students Perceptions of Distance Learning, Online Learning and the Traditional Classroom, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume II, Number IV, Winter, pp. 1-11.

111

Ottewill, R., Fletcher, J., & Jennings, P. (1997). Motivating University based open learners. In Budapest, Hungary: European Distance Education Network.

Pesserini, K. & Ganger, M .J. (2000). A developmental model for distance learning using the internet. Computers and education, 34, 1-15.

Picciano, A. (2002).Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 6, 21-40.

Powell, B. and Davies, S., 2002. The state of ICT in Scottish FE colleges. Available at: http://ferl.becta.org.uk/content_files/pages/surveys/stateofiltincolleges/Scottish%2 0report%20final.2.pdf

Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in learning network. The internet and higher education, 3, 285-297.

Ruhleder, K., & Twidale, M. (2000, May 2000). Reflective collaborative learning on the web: Drawing on the master class. First Monday, Retrieved February 6, 2001 from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_5/ruhleder/

Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online, Kogan Page, London.

Schellens, T. & Valcke M (2004). Collaborative Learning in Synchronous Discussion Groups: What about the Impact of Cognitive Processing. Computers in Human behavior, in Press.

Schrum, L. & Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions and strategies for online success: voices from experienced educators. Journal of Asynchronous learning Networks (JALN), 6, 57-67.

Seale, J .K. & Cann, A. J. (2002). Reflection online or offline: the role of learning technologies in encouraging students to reflect. Computers and Education, 34, 309 – 320.

Spiceland, J .D & Hawkins, C. P. (2002). The Impact on Learning of an asynchronous active learning course format. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 6, 68-75.

112

Tery, A., Rourke, L., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 5.

Trindale, A. R., Carmo, H., & Bidarra, J. (2000). Current developments and best practices in open and distance learning. International review of research in open and distance learning.

Underwood, J. and Dillon, G. 2003. ICT Test Bed Project Evaluation: Maturity Models. Becta.

Varanelli, A. &Baugher, D. (2001). A problem-based, collaborative learning approach to distance education at MBA level: e.MBA@PACE . Business, Education and Technology, Spring, 36-44.

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: a case study. The internet and higher education, 6, 77-90.

Wang, Y-S. (2003) Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems, Information & Management, Volume 41, pp. 75-86.

Whittle J., Morgan, M. & Maltby, J. (2000). Higher learning online: using constructivist principles to design effective asynchronous discussion. Paper presented as the NAWEB2000Conference. http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/2000/whittle.html

World Health Organisation (1981). Managerial process for national health development: Guiding principles for use in support of strategies for Health for All by Year 2000. Health for All Series, No. 5.

Wu, D. & Hiltz, S .R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous. Journal of Asynchronous learning Networks (JALN), 8, 139-152.

113

114