Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning
Introduction
Over the past 20 years, research on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) has helped support the claim that collaborative activity among students can effectively be supported with computer technology. The accumulated knowledge concerning effective CSCL has also led to detailed design guidelines for CSCL (Kirschner et al., 2004, Kreijns et al., 2003, Strijbos et al., 2004). In spite of these design guidelines, researchers still experience problems when students collaborate using computer technology. These include for example, conflicts (Hobman, Bordia, Irmer, & Chang, 2002), communication difficulties (Daft and Lengel, 1986, Fuks et al., 2006), and shallow, uncritical discussions (Munneke, Andriessen, Kanselaar, & Kirschner, 2007). Although these problems may be caused by poor implementation of the design guidelines mentioned, it may also be the case that research has focused too little on potential moderators that can influence the effectiveness of CSCL (Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995), such as time spent on group work (e.g., one session versus prolonged group work), task type (e.g., open versus closed tasks), group size (e.g., small versus large groups), and group or student characteristics (e.g., estrangement versus familiarity of group members). For example, how well students know each other prior to their collaboration may have an impact on several aspects of their collaboration (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992). Ignoring such moderators may lead to inconsistent and contrasting results, making it very risky to draw generalizations. Furthermore, it is important identify factors that moderate the effectiveness of CSCL, because then they can be taken into account by educational designers enabling the design of more effective and enjoyable CSCL experiences.
The aim of this contribution is to examine the effect of one such potential moderator, namely group member familiarity. Kiesler and Sproull (1992) identified group member familiarity as an important factor to consider when designing CSCL. The effects of familiarity on group interaction and performance are related to aspects of Tuckman’s (1965) stages of group formation: Forming, storming, norming, and performing. It has been hypothesized that when group members know each other well, they will spend less time forming a coherent group, and will establish group norms more easily, and thus, reach the performing stage more quickly. This is thought to have beneficial effects for, among others, satisfaction with online collaboration and group performance (Adams, Roch, & Ayman, 2005). Furthermore, research has highlighted the importance of prior experiences of online collaborators (Carlson & Zmud, 1999). The more experience students have with, for example, the medium, their group members, or the task at hand, the more effectively they will be able to collaborate online. When students know their group members well, they have acquired knowledge about their partners that they can use to interpret partners’ messages, to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and to adapt their communication to their partners’ specific needs. Moreover, when students acquire knowledge about their partners they may develop deindividuating impressions of their group members (Walther, 1992), which may help them to overcome the inherent restrictions of the medium (e.g., lack of verbal cues, intonation of voice, and gestures). Also, it can be assumed that trust is higher in familiar group contexts (Carlson & Zmud, 1999). Research has shown that it takes some time for trust to develop among group members during online collaboration, while trust (or the lack thereof) has also been found to have effects on the collaborative process (Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006). This all suggests that when students know their group members well, their online collaboration will be more efficient and effective.
Although only a small number of studies have investigated the impact of group member familiarity on CSCL (Adams et al., 2005, Mennecke, Hoffer, & Valacich, 1995, Mukahi & Corbitt, 2004, Orengo Castellá et al., 2000, Smolensky et al., 1990), researchers have demonstrated possible positive and negative consequences of increased familiarity among group members. For example, Adams et al. found that when group members knew each other better, their satisfaction with the group process increased, although their decision accuracy decreased. Similarly, Smolensky, Carmody, and Halcomb (1990) found that familiarity had a negative impact on students’ interactive behavior, which, in turn led to decreased group performance. In contrast, Mukahi and Corbitt found no relationship between familiarity and students’ collaborative activities.
An explanation for the mixed results may be the different operationalizations of familiarity (Adams et al., 2005). Adams et al., for example, following Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams, and Neale (1996), asked students to rate familiarity with group members on a 4-point scale. Smolensky et al. (1990), on the other hand, did not measure familiarity directly but asked half of their participants to bring two friends to their experiment, so as to create familiar and unfamiliar groups, thus equating familiarity with friendship. In our opinion however, students can be familiar with each other without being friends. In this study, familiarity was operationalized by asking students, before the start of their collaboration, to indicate how well they knew the other group members. This way, the collaboration itself does not affect students’ judgments of familiarity. On the other hand, asking students to rate familiarity before the collaboration may draw attention to whether they worked with friends or strangers, which may influence students’ subsequent collaborative behavior.
Our study differed on several aspects from previous studies on familiarity. In contrast to other studies, students in our sample came from existing secondary education classes, thus most group members knew their teammates to a certain extent, although variations obviously existed. In other studies, (university) students were recruited from a pool of student volunteers (e.g., Adams et al., 2005). Additionally, the study presented here was carried out in an authentic educational context, in which students collaborated online for a longer period of time. In contrast, in other studies the effects of familiarity were often examined in a single online session, while students worked on group tasks with little or no relationship to the curriculum (e.g., Mennecke, Hoffer, & Valacich, 1995, Orengo Castellá et al., 2000). Furthermore, most studies that examined the role of familiarity during online collaboration focused on either students’ perceptions (e.g., their satisfaction with the collaborative process) or on students’ interactive behavior (e.g., use of negative speech). This study will focus on perceptions as well as behavior.
Thus, in order to extend the research findings concerning familiarity, this paper focuses on the effects of familiarity on (a) perceived group norms, (b) perceptions of online collaboration and communication, (c) students’ collaborative activities, and (d) group performance. The remainder of this introduction focuses on describing the possible effects familiarity may have on these four variables.
As groups include group members who are more familiar with one another, students may be more comfortable expressing disagreement (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). As such, familiarity may help group members to adopt critical or exploratory group norms instead of consensus norms (Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001). This is important because critical or exploratory group discussions have been shown to lead to more effective group work (Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999). During critical group discussion, students do not hesitate to question each others’ opinions or to disagree with one another (Postmes et al.). Exploratory group discussions are similar to critical group discussions in the sense that students accept criticism from each other and discuss alternatives. In addition, these kinds of discussions should be held in a constructive manner. In other words, conflicts and disagreements are welcome, but group members should try to resolve them and come to an agreement (Di Eugenio et al., 2000, Erkens et al., 2005). Furthermore, during exploratory discussions group members share relevant information and encourage each other to participate (Wegerif et al., 1999). It is expected that familiar group members will be more likely to develop group norms which value critical or exploratory online discussions because they do not feel the social pressure to agree with other group members (Adams et al., 2005). Unfamiliar group members may be more prone to adapt to such pressure. These critical or exploratory versus consensual group norms will be developed in the norming stage of group formation (Tuckman, 1965). Thus, the following hypothesis may be formulated:
H1 Group member familiarity will contribute to more critical and exploratory group norms.
In familiar groups, group cohesion will likely be higher because group members feel more comfortable with the other members (Adams et al., 2005, Mennecke, Hoffer, & Valacich, 1995). Furthermore, when group members know each other better, they may be able to communicate and collaborate efficiently (Adams et al.). This will lead familiar group members to perceive their online communication and collaboration within their group as being more positive. Students may also perceive their communication and collaboration more positively in familiar groups because psychological safety is higher in these groups (Schepers et al., 2008, Van den Bossche et al., 2006). Indeed, studies by Mennecke, Hoffer, & Valacich, 1995, Adams et al., 2005, Stone and Posey, 2008 found more positive perceptions of communication and collaboration in familiar groups. Therefore, a second hypothesis will be investigated:
H2 Group member familiarity will lead to positive perceptions regarding the collaborative process.
As familiarity between group members increases, communication and coordination of collaboration may take less effort. For example, the transfer of information relevant to executing the task may be more efficient, and misunderstandings may be less likely to occur. This can be explained by the higher amount of knowledge available to familiar group members of other member’s skills, expertise and communication styles (Adams et al., 2005). Familiar group members may share a social history, making it easier to understand each other and know each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, familiarity may decrease the need for extensive regulation and coordination of task and group processes. Consequently, a third hypothesis will also be investigated.
H3 Group member familiarity will influence online collaborative activities. More specifically, transfer of information, regulation of task and group processes, and misunderstandings will decrease.
In light of the above, it is likely that the increased knowledge of group members’ skills and modes of interaction will help familiar groups outperform groups of strangers. For example, familiar groups will experience less process losses (e.g., misunderstandings) and be more inclined to pool information resources to effectively carry out the group task (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). Furthermore, if H1 is true, then familiar groups may hold more critical and exploratory group norms, which help them engage in argumentative interactions. Such argumentative interactions are likely to contribute to quality of the collaboration (Clark et al., 2007, Munneke et al., 2007, Weinberger and Fischer, 2006). Finally, collaboration may be more efficient because familiar groups do not need to devote as much time to regulating and coordinating task and group processes. Therefore, this study will address a fourth and final hypothesis:
H4 Group member familiarity will lead to better group performance.
Section snippets
Participants
The participants were students who came from five different history classes from two secondary schools. The total sample consisted of 105 eleventh-grade students (47 male, 56 female). The mean age of the students was 16.17 years (SD = .57, Min = 15, Max = 18). The participants were randomly assigned to 35 different 3-person groups. It is important to note that students were assigned to groups within their own class and did not collaborate with students from other classes or schools.
CSCL environment: Virtual Collaborative Research Institute
Group
Procedure
In total, the participating students worked eight, 50-min lessons on the inquiry task. During the lessons, each student worked on a separate computer in a computer lab. Students sat as far from their teammates as possible, in order to stimulate them to use to the VCRI-program to communicate with their other group members. Before the first computer lesson, students received information about the task and their group’s composition. Furthermore, students completed a pretest questionnaire,
Group norm perception
Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of familiarity and the three measures of group norm perception, and their intercorrelations. As can be seen from this Table, students reported an average familiarity (M = 4.24, SD = 1.48) with their group members. Furthermore, familiarity correlated significantly with several dependent variables.
Because the data were nested (i.e., students worked in groups), and because there was interdependence between group members’ scores (i.e., group members
Conclusions and discussion
This study investigated the effect of familiarity on CSCL. The results indicate that familiarity influences several aspects of online collaboration. Because familiar group members may be more comfortable expressing their disagreement with their teammates, it was expected that higher familiarity would be associated with more critical and exploratory group norm perceptions (H1). This was confirmed as we found that familiar students reported their group norms to be more critical and exploratory
Acknowledgements
This study is part of the Computerized Representation of Coordination in Collaborative Learning (CRoCiCL) project. This project is funded by NWO, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research under project number 411-02-121. Furthermore, the authors thank Jos Jaspers and Marcel Broeken for their technical assistance. Extra thanks to Alyda Griffioen for her work during the preliminary data analyses.
References (58)
- et al.
Regulative processes in individual, 3D and computer supported cooperative learning contexts
Computers in Human Behavior
(2005) - et al.
Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups
Learning and Instruction
(2007) - et al.
Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing
Computers in Human Behavior
(2005) An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research
Decision Support Systems
(2004)- et al.
Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1996) - et al.
Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning
Computers in Human Behavior
(2007) - et al.
Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning?
Computers and Education
(2007) - et al.
Group decision making and communication technology
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1992) - et al.
Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research
Computers in Human Behavior
(2003) - et al.
Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem
Computers in Human Behavior
(2007)
The influence of familiarity among group members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behavior through three different communication media
Computers in Human Behavior
Psychological safety and social support in groupware adoption: A multi-level assessment in education
Computers and Education
The influence of task type, group structure and extraversion on uninhibited speech in computer-mediated communication
Computers in Human Behavior
Understanding coordination in computer-mediated versus face-to-face groups
Computers in Human Behavior
Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning
Computers and Education
Content analysis: What are they talking about?
Computers and Education
Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting
Computers in Human Behavior
Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL
Computers in Human Behavior
From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development
Learning and Instruction
A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning
Computers and Education
All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Communication medium and member familiarity: The effects on decision time, accuracy, and satisfaction
Small Group Research
Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions
Academy of Management Journal
A computer program for assessing specific category rater agreement for qualitative data
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments
Educational Psychology Review
The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research: An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design
Management Science
The agreement process: An empirical investigation of human–human computer-mediated collaborative dialogs
International Journal of Human–Computer Studies
Cited by (110)
Investigating the combined effects of role assignment and discussion timing in a blended learning environment
2024, Internet and Higher EducationCollaborate like expert designers: An exploratory study of the role of individual preparation activity on students' collaborative learning
2023, Internet and Higher EducationVideo-based mind maps in higher education: A design-based research study of pre-service teachers' co-construction of shared knowledge
2023, Learning, Culture and Social InteractionFeedback from medical student on an interactive online anatomy practical using the Google Jamboard platform
2023, Journal of Taibah University Medical SciencesImpact of role assignment and group size on asynchronous online discussion: An experimental study
2023, Computers and Education