As discussed in the previous sub-section, cooperative and collaborative learning in online/virtual learning environments does not change the basic challenges and methods of effective teaching and learning. In online communities (see subsection 2.2) cooperation works in much the same way as in face-to-face communities (see subsection 3.5), but it is important to note that the nature of virtual environments compared to face-to-face situations changes the social processes of cooperation. This chapter compares characteristics of communication and interaction that distinguish face-to-face learning from cooperative/collaborative online learning.
Interaction through a computer interface is qualitatively different from traditional face-to- face interaction and the generally accepted result is that social interaction takes longer to develop in an online environment than in a face-to-face environment (e.g. Walther, 1992;
Collins & Berge, 1996). Drawing on earlier research, Winkler and Mandl (2004) compiled a list of technical and social factors that make virtual interaction different from face-to-face interaction. Their analysis of the social factors also sheds light on the reasons why social interaction takes longer to develop online.
The technical aspects include system performance, documentation and coordination effort.
System performance refers to the difficulties that low system performance (e.g. slow Internet connection) may cause to the use of CMC systems and to the formation of an online community. Documentation refers to the tendency of CMC systems to document and archive all the discussions and work that learners have made, thus making it possible to refer to earlier parts of a discussion when trying to find new approaches and ideas. The problem arises from the large quantity of data and the ways it should be processed by the learners, and the fact that large amounts of data may lead to information-overload (see social factors below). Coordination effort refers to the tendency of online discussion forums to produce discussion threads where the individual messages may have little to do with each other (other learners’ responses may completely ignore an important point made by some other learner and the discussion may veer off the intended topic). This means that the learners have to work harder in virtual environments in order to coordinate their work properly. (Winkler & Mandl, 2004.)
In their review of social factors affecting online interaction as compared to off-line interaction, Winkler and Mandl (2004) list such issues as a lack of social indication stimulus, lack of social presence, hindered development of trust, information overload and negotiation of aims. By lack of social indication stimulus they mean that online communication precludes non-verbal and para-verbal forms of interaction. This affects the quality of the communication, making it more difficult to spot difficulties in understanding and give direct feedback. Winkler and Mandl (ibid.) point out that this leads to social norms that seem to be less binding in online communities. Lack of social presence, on the other hand, refers to the fact that virtual environments offer fewer communication channels than face-to-face environments. Participants are not usually aware that someone has read the message they have written and profited from it, which, according to Winkler and Mandl (ibid.) can lead to apersonal structures of relationship and dysfunctional social behaviour. Online/virtual learning environments also offer the participants a certain degree of anonymity, which makes it easier for them to “lurk;” that is, to not take part in the learning process even though they are present in the environment. It is easier to hide from others when all that reveals your presence is your textual input. Hindered development of trust refers to the fact that online environments offer fewer possibilities for informal exchanges between the participants, which is the primary sphere of interaction in which feelings of trust between individuals are developed (see also Wenger, 1998; Wenger,
McDermott & Snyder, 2002). Winkler and Mandl (2004) note that in online environments participants should consciously create informal opportunities for interaction and that some aspects of working together, such as norms and procedures for cooperation, should be discussed openly even though they are often taken for granted in face-to-face communities.
Information overload can take easily occur in online environments since all participants can write as many and as lengthy messages as they like. This, according to Winkler and Mandl (ibid.) may lead to disorientation if the assimilation capacity of the participants is exceeded. Lastly, they note that due to the asynchronous method of communication, the negotiation of aims at the beginning of a cooperative effort is very important. In online environments, this will take more time than in face-to-face negotiation, but it is very important to take this extra time. If the group starts working before they have clearly agreed on their aims, they may end up wasting much of their time and energy trying to get back into focus later.
Winkler and Mandl (2004) conclude their account by claiming that all these technical and social factors can be overcome if their existence is accepted from the beginning. As it is, the existence of factors differentiating between online and offline interaction is the greatest challenge for online cooperation. The basic process for cooperation (or to learn, see the previous sub-section) does not change, but the medium and challenges are different and thus pose problems for many who fail to detect and take these differences into account.
Schweizer, Paechter and Weidenmann (2004) point out that while face-to-face communication and online communication may differ from each other, it should not be mistakenly believed that online communication is the underdog in this comparison. Like many other communication media researchers (e.g. Daft & Lengel, 1986), they categorise communication media according to their richness (Media Richness theory). Media richness refers to the variety and amount of information that is available in various media. Like Winkler and Mandl (2004) above, they recognise that online communication misses certain social indication stimuli, such as non- and para-verbal communication, but rather than seeing this as a failing that has to be remedied, they recognise it as a strength that can be used in certain types of tasks. Communication media that are considered rich offer the participants more cues, greater personalisation and rapid feedback, which can improve the group’s achievements. However, Schweizer, Paechter and Weidenmann (2004) concur that rich communication is not always favourable. They propose that rich media is best suited
for tasks in which group participants are required to reach a consensus or to reconcile different viewpoints, whereas less rich media better support tasks that are more creative, such as information gathering (rather than evaluation) and brainstorming.
Similar findings are reported also in the so-called Media Synchronicity theory, in which communication media are categorised according to their synchronicity—as opposed to asynchronicity (Dennis & Valacich, 1999). Dennis and Valacich (ibid.) argue that empirical tests of media richness theory have not been convincing as they pertain to online learning environments, and that a new approach is needed. Dennis and Valacich (ibid.) dismiss the idea of task outcome objectives and argue that the synchronicity theory considers group communication to be composed of two primary processes, conveyance and convergence. The synchronicity theory is based on five media characteristics that affect communication: 1) immediacy of feedback, 2) symbol variety, which refers to the variety of information channels, 3) parallelism, which “refers to the number of simultaneous conversations that can exist effectively” (ibid., 2), 4) rehearsability, which refers to the extent to which the participants can fine tune their messages before sending them, and 5) reprocessability, which refers to the extent to which a message can be re-examined and processed again within the communication event. As it is, Dennis and Valacich’s (ibid.) analysis is clearly geared towards online communication and various computer tools that can be used for communication and does not, as such, pay much attention to face-to-face communication. However, one of their findings is that high synchronicity supports the development of a common understanding of the task, while low synchronicity supports the distribution of information, which supports the conclusions of media richness theory.
Dennis and Valacich (1999: 8) further note that established groups (see subsection 3.5.2) with accepted norms will require less communication through high synchronicity media than new groups. This is because of the greater need for immediate social feedback during the inception and conflict solving phases of a newly formed group, whereas more experienced groups have generally already established their working norms and enough shared enough experiences to let them convey meanings with shorter and more asynchronous messages. Similarly, Dennis and Valacich (ibid.) note that when a newly formed group, or a group with new members, gains experience and builds norms, it will feel less need for highly synchronous communication. New groups, groups with new members and groups without accepted norms therefore require communication media that
offers them a wide variety of symbols for greater social presence, whereas established groups, focussed on learning, use asynchronous communication as a tool for information exchange in order to work on their learning assignments.
This suggests that, in order to construct functional learning communities, one needs to give learners a chance to discuss casually and interact socially in order for them to grow into a group, rather than restrict their communication to learning activities and discussions that directly pertain to their learning tasks. In online learning, chat forums offer the required synchronous communication media and even on asynchronous discussion forums the learners can use various emoticons (aka smileys) as non-verbal and para-verbal forms of communication to convey their social presence. In some practical applications of virtual cooperative learning, it is possible to arrange face-to-face meetings to accommodate this initial social construction of the learning groups and communities, as was the case in the present study.
All in all, online learning environments present numerous challenges for cooperation and collaboration. Some of these challenges may be overcome by simply acknowledging their existence and taking them into account in the design of the online learning environments.
For example, system performance, one of the technical factors that may hamper the use of online environments, can be taken into account by designing the virtual learning environments so that they can be used with slow connections and older hardware (i.e., only light graphics, few or no frames and quick database look-ups). Lack of social indication stimulus can be partly countered by the use of emoticons and partly by paying special attention and taking care that all the participants understand each others’ messages. Venues for informal exchanges can be increased in the form of open discussion forums to give the participants a chance to build mutual trust and, at least at the beginning of group formation, synchronous chat forums and face-to-face meetings will also support this goal. There are, however, some aspects of online learning that require the establishment of special support systems for the learners. These include encouraging learners to take part in group processes to lessen the learners’ tendency to “lurk”, caused by the lack of social presence and resultant anonymity, and helping them to get over any social clash that may occur in their community. These aspects of support for learning will be the topic of the next sub-section.