The importance of participant interaction in online environments
Introduction
After reviews of numerous studies have concluded that at worst there is no significant difference in outcomes between online and classroom-based courses [12], [50], a finding consistent with reviews of the empirical Group Support Systems literature [18], probably one of the most definitive research findings to date regarding the effectiveness of online learning is the importance of participant interaction [5], [45]. An increasing number of studies suggest that participant engagement, whether it is between participants and/or between participants and the instructor, is one of the strongest predictors of positive outcomes in online educational environments [14], [15], [33], [44]. However, as literature moves from mere comparisons of results in traditional vs. online environments to considering additional intervening variables [12], [50], the area of participant interaction deserves closer attention. In addition to measuring the relationship between types of interaction and outcomes, there is a need to understand the nature of these interactions and potential influences on them [21], [43].
Relatively little research attention has been devoted to examine the nature of interaction across a large sample of participants drawn from different online environments, in part because of the relative newness of the research stream and the exploratory nature of initial online settings. As this area matures from the research and practice standpoint, there is an opportunity to systematically examine different types of interaction in multiple online environments, taking into account the design of these virtual spaces and their outcomes [45], [49]. Research that determines strong levels of fit between modes of participant interaction and other characteristics would be most useful for encouraging successful online instruction and training.
This paper seeks to clarify the relationship between types of participant interaction, considering both the design of the online environments and their outcomes. By studying these relationships, we hope to be able to provide guidance regarding the types of interaction that are more appropriate and conducive to successful outcomes. The paper begins with a review of the literature on types of online environments and types of participant interaction. We then use this background to formulate the research hypotheses guiding this study. The next section describes the data collection techniques and operationalization of variables for a sample collected over seven semesters at a university in the Midwestern U.S. The presentation of results is followed by a discussion of the findings, limitations, and implications of this research. Finally, we conclude by discussing the study's contributions and future research directions.
Section snippets
Typology of online environments
Computer-based learning environments provide opportunities for online learners to learn at their chosen time and location while allowing them to interact with other online learners and access a wide range of online resources [49]. Depending on how learners receive the materials and interact with others, online virtual spaces designed for education and training can be classified in terms of two dimensions: knowledge construction and group collaboration, with each one further subdivided into two
Sample and data collection
To test these hypotheses, we used a sample of forty class sections delivered entirely online, from the MBA program of an upper-Midwest U.S. University, between Summer 2000 and Summer 2002. These sections included a wide range of courses (Strategy, Organizational Behavior, Project Management, International Business, Human Resources, Finance, Accounting, Management, Information Systems, and E-Commerce) taught by fifteen different instructors. Enrollments in these sections ranged from 9 to 35
Factor and reliability analysis
To study the properties of the scales used in this study, we conducted a Harman's one-factor test using the student survey items in an unrotated factor analysis. This analysis produced eight factors with no single factor accounting for the majority of variance, thus reducing concerns about common method variance [16]. A factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to compute the factor loadings. The results show that all the items measuring each of the eight perceptual variables clearly
Discussion
This study provides evidence of the importance of participant interaction for the success of online environments. With these results, we help answer recent calls for more research into contextual factors that influence online learning effectiveness [5], [32]. Building upon prior research, we measured participant interaction in terms of learner–learner, learner–instructor and learner–system interaction. These measures were collected on a large sample of students taking different online MBA
Conclusion
Using a large sample of students from forty online MBA course-sections, this study investigated different types of participant interaction. In particular, we examined learner–learner, learner–instructor and learner–system and their effects on learning perception and medium satisfaction. Despite expected differences in participant interaction variables depending on the type of online environment, this study found that participants who are more engaged with the system tend to be more satisfied
J. B. Arbaugh is the Curwood Endowed Professor and a Professor of Strategy and Project Management at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. He is an Associate Editor of Academy of Management Learning and Education. Ben's research interests are in online management education, international entrepreneurship, the management of rapidly growing firms, and the intersection between spirituality and strategic management research. Some of his recent publications include articles in Academy of Management
References (50)
Learning to learn online: a study of perceptual changes between multiple online course experiences
Internet and Higher Education
(2004)- et al.
Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses?
Internet and Higher Education
(2006) - et al.
Separating the effects of knowledge construction and group collaboration
Information and Management
(2006) - et al.
A comparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. asynchronous group decision making
Decision Support Systems
(2003) - et al.
Asynchronous implementation of the nominal group technique: is it effective?
Decision Support Systems
(2000) An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research
Decision Support Systems
(2004)- et al.
Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance
Decision Support Systems
(2004) - et al.
Remote learning technologies: effects of hypertext and GSS
Decision Support Systems
(1999) - et al.
Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning
Decision Support Systems
(1997) Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks
Internet and Higher Education
(2002)
Effects of GSS interface and task type on group interaction: an empirical study
Decision Support Systems
A comprehensive method for the evaluation of complete intelligent tutoring systems
Decision Support Systems
Intelligent agent supported personalization for virtual learning environments
Decision Support Systems
Computer-mediated collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation
MIS Quarterly
Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA courses
Journal of Management Education
How much does “subject matter” matter? A study of disciplinary effects in on-line MBA courses
Academy of Management Learning and Education
Contextual factors that influence ALN effectiveness
Improving education and training with Information Technology
Communications of the ACM
Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Facilitating computer conferencing: recommendations from the field
Educational Technology
How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature
Review of Educational Research
Graduate business students' performance with synchronous and asynchronous interaction e-learning methods
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education
Becoming a virtual professor: pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks
Journal of Management Information Systems
Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?
Organizational Research Methods
Cited by (0)
J. B. Arbaugh is the Curwood Endowed Professor and a Professor of Strategy and Project Management at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. He is an Associate Editor of Academy of Management Learning and Education. Ben's research interests are in online management education, international entrepreneurship, the management of rapidly growing firms, and the intersection between spirituality and strategic management research. Some of his recent publications include articles in Academy of Management Learning and Education, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Management Learning, the Journal of Management, Spirituality, and Religion, the Journal of Enterprising Culture, and the Journal of Management Education.
Raquel Benbunan-Fich is an Associate Professor at the SCIS Department in the Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York. She received her Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from Rutgers University – Graduate School of Management. Her research interests include educational applications of computer-mediated communication systems, Asynchronous Learning Networks, evaluation of Web-based systems and e-commerce. She has published articles on related topics in Communications of the ACM, Decision Support Systems, Group Decision and Negotiation, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Information and Management, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Journal of Computer Information Systems and other journals.
- 1
Tel.: +1 920 424 7189; fax: +1 920 424 7413.