|
|
|
Survey
Survey Analysis| Recommendations
EDER 677 had two separate sections, being Audio Conferencing and Campus Classroom. Each week both sections contributed to WebCT discussions as one class. We wanted to know how these two different mediums of communication affected how students came together for discussion in the same medium (WebCT discussions). We conducted a brief Likert-Scale survey with our class to find out how each section collaborated, developed relationships and used WebCT as a single class. For the complete survey click here.
The data analysis has been coded as to protect the identity of the participants and not personal information was collected from the participants. We received 21 responses out of a possible 27. The data analysis provided no statistically significant differences between the Campus Group and the Audio Group on how they collaborated as separate classes, or as a single class when using WebCT.
The first part of the survey provided us information on the demographic make up of each group.
1. 70% of the Campus Group and 73% of the Audio group were Male. While 30% of the Campus Group and 27% of the Audio group were Female.
2. 70% of the Campus Group and 82% of the Audio Group worked full time. 30% of the Campus Group and 9% of the Audio Group were not working.
3. 45% of the Audio Group and 30% of the Campus Group were taking one course. 45% of the Audio Group and 20% of the Campus Group were taking two courses. 30% of the Campus Group and 0% of the Audio Group were taking three courses, while the remaining were taking more than three courses.
4. The majority of both groups had intermediate computer skill levels.
The second part of the survey provided us with information on how each group collaborated as separate classes, and how they collaborated as a single class using WebCT. However, we did not report on all the survey questions, just the ones we saw as being important to group collaboration.
1. The campus group did feel more competition for the screen during WebCT discussions. The Campus Group (x=2.8) compared against the Audio Group (x=3.70 for agreement on feeling competition for the screen during WebCT class dicussions.
2. The Audio Group felt more at ease sharing answers in WebCT discussions. The Audio Group (x=2.5) compared to the Campus Group (x=3.3) for agreement on this statement. The Campus Group was slightly disagree to this statement
3. The Campus group trusted their classmates more than the Audio Group did. The Campus Group (x=1.6) compared to the Audio Group (x=2.4) for agreement on this statement. Both groups were in agreement, however the Campus group was in more agreement.
4. The Campus group trusted both sections classmates while using WebCT more than the Audio Group did. The Campus Group (x=1.7) compared to the Audio Group (x=2.5) for agreement on this statement.
5. Both groups recognized their own sections classmates names more than they recognized the combined (both sections in WebCT) names.
6. The Campus group (x=2) felt part of a group during class time discussions than the Audio Group (x=2.4)
7. The Audio Group paid more attention to who had contributed to WebCT discussions than the Campus Group
The third section of the survey revealed which collaboration tools each section used.
1. 64 % of the Audio Group and 30% of the Campus Group checked the WebCT discussions 5-10 times per week. 30% of the Campus Group and 9% of the Audio Group checked WebCT discussions 10-15 times per week. 91% of the Audio Group and 80% of the Campus Group posted 1-3 times per week to the WebCT discussion. While 20% of the Campus Group and 9% of the Audio Group posted 3-5 times per week.
2. 64% of the Audio Group and 40% of the Campus group checked their email 15 or more times per week. While 20% of the Campus Group and 0% of the Audio Group checked their email 1-5 times per week.
3. Email communication to students and the instructor was relatively equal between Campus and Audio Groups.
4. 40% of the Campus Group and 45 % of the Audio Group used WebCT Chat to communicate with classmates. While 60% of the Campus Group and 55% of the Audio Group did not use WebCT Chat.
Which communication tools did the students use and how?
The most commonly used WebCT tool was chat. Chat was used mainly for collaborative group work. Groups worked on projects and constructed the weekly moderation. The other most commons used WebCT tool (other than Discussions) was email, which was used mainly to organize chat meetings and notify group members of meetings, updates, or other project related issues. Email outside of WebCT was also used to organize group meetings in WebCT chat and to collaborate on group projects.
How satisfied were the students with the WebCT communication Tools?
In general the class was satisfied with WebCT communication tools. However, it is recommended that the number of users kept to minimum. If there are three of more in the chat room than the functionality of chat decreases. With two students in the chat room the chat can be more structured and productive. A member of the audio group mentioned that once WebCT was combined with audio conferencing, the two can be very effective. The fact that messages could be searched also increased the satisfaction of the students. However, between all the communication tools available, it is a matter of choosing the best tool for the job to assist in group collaboration.
Based on the results from the survey, we have have developed a few recommendations for facilitating online group collaboration:
1. Groups should be kept small (2-3) when collaborating online. This certainly applies to chat as it gets very difficult to follow the conversation with more than two users. Using cues to let the other users know when you are done your turn talking, done with topic, or want to start a new topic is good. This way, you will not have multiple conversations at once, which can get really confusing.
2. Face to Face meeting is important in the forming of online communities. The Campus Group developed a greater sense of trust than the Audio Group. However, face to face meetings are not possible all the time. One thing the Audio Group could have done was to provide pictures and descriptions of each other on a webpage.
3. Choose the right communication tool for the collaboration job. Some students found that using a combination of tools worked really well for online collaboration. Using one mode of communication could possible limit the level of collaboration.
4. Students will use the communication tool that is most framiliar and comfortable to them. The survey revealed that students used their regular email accounts for collaboration. Since there are many collaborative tools available, students should be able to pick and chose which one they want to use. They should not be forced into using a tool they have never used or have no desire to use.
Last update: April 8, 2001