STUDENTS’ ACCEPTANCE OF E-GROUP COLLABORATION
LEARNING
Adam Marks
Departmen of Business Administration, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversitY Worldwide, Daytona Beach, FL, U.S.A.
Keywords: Electronic Learning, Higher Education, Group Collaboration Tools.
Abstract: Online students in higher education are increasingly using Electronic Group Collaboration learning tools
such as Discussion Forums, Blogs, Wikis, and Journals within their course environment. This study
discusses some of these new online group-collaborative tools, and the extent to which they are being used.
This study also investigates the level of acceptance of learners of these tools. The findings of this study
describe the number and type of Electronic Group Collaboration tools most preferred by online students,
and the reasons behind their preference.
1 INTRODUCTION
The last decade witnessed a significant increase of
network-based technologies that enable online
students to work collaboratively (Jermann and
Muhelnbrockl, 2005), (Boulos, et al, 2006).
Electronic Learning (e-Learning) facilitates the
sharing of costs, sharing of information and
expertise among multiple sites and different
constituencies, while providing additional
educational opportunities (Hackley and Webster,
1997), (Meier and Simon, 2000), (Simon, et al,
2002). Web 2.0 applications, specifically wikis and
blogs, have been adopted because of their ease of
use, rapidity of deployment, and their ability to
facilitate information sharing and collaboration.
As e-learning continues to grow in popularity
with both traditional and non-traditional students,
many educational institutions are utilizing
collaborative group e-learning to improve the
learning experience of their students. Working in
groups significantly increases learning perceptions,
problem solving skills, and helps students achieve a
higher level of learning than individuals learning
alone (Hilz, et al, 1999). Group learning improves
group communication and problem solving skills,
which can be easily transferable to the work
environment (Becker and Dwyer, 1998), especially
since virtual work groups are a common component
of today’s corporate structure (Black, 2002).
Collaborative group learning exercises are
student centred, and enable students to share
authority and empower themselves with the
responsibility of building on their foundational
knowledge (Myers, 1991). However, these group
activities are not always enthusiastically accepted by
students and have a number of quality concerns
(Cuban, 2003). The efficiency and effectiveness of
group e-learning may be affected by factors such as:
non-contributing group members, unequal workload,
scheduling, personal/social conflicts between group
members, computer self-efficacy, surrounding
technological factors, or instructional design issues
(Becker and Dwyer, 1998), (Al-Fadhli, 2010).
As research shows, technology is neutral until it
delivers content (Clarck, 1994), and may lose its
effectiveness if it is not applied in a planned and
systematic manner (Laurillard, 2002). Empirical
research is still needed to fully understand the
different aspects of electronic group collaboration
tools in the context of higher education, and to assist
practitioners to effectively and successfully deploy
them. Instructors and system administrators should
keep the learning objectives of each course in mind
and how they could be best served. Student
acceptance of these collaborative tools directly
influences their motivation and creativity in meeting
associated learning objectives.
This study contributes to the body of knowledge
by conducting an exploratory study in students’
acceptance of the number and types of Electronic
Group Collaborative Tools within the context of
Higher Education learning systems. The primary
objective of this study is to determine potential ways
269
Marks A..
STUDENTS’ ACCEPTANCE OF E-GROUP COLLABORATION LEARNING.
DOI: 10.5220/0003409602690274
In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2011), pages 269-274
ISBN: 978-989-8425-56-0
Copyright
c
 2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

to integrate E-Group Collaborative Tools into
existing e-learning systems by identifying the most
preferred E-Group Collaborative Tools, and the
number of tools students expect/accept to see in one
class.
2 RELATED WORK
According to (Jermann, et al, 2005), collaborative
systems can be classified into three types; the first
category includes systems that collect raw data and
make it available for display to collaborators, such
as systems that reflect the number of students in a
chat room, or that display the login information for
students in a class to all other users; the second
category of collaborative systems includes those
which monitor and model the state of interaction and
provide collaborators with visualizations that can be
used to analyze the interaction, an example of which
is the number of posts by a specific user to a specific
discussion board. The third category of systems
guides the collaborators by recommending actions
students might take to improve their interaction.
This category may include systems that allow group
discussion rooms, or group project assignments,
where interaction/evaluation among students and
between the group and the instructor is conducted
within the system (Jermann, et al, 2005).
While most higher education learning systems
contain functions from all three listed categories,
this paper is mainly concerned with the third
category of systems, where interaction/evaluation
among students and between the group and the
instructor is conducted within the learning system.
More specifically this paper is concerned with the
use of discussion forums, blogs, wikis, and journals
to facilitate Electronic Group Learning in the higher
education online environment.
Group Collaboration e-Systems provide students
with a forum to meet and connect with their peers.
They allow students to communicate and collaborate
effectively. They also provide instructors with more
insight into individual student participation within
group activities. Instructors can easily create and
enrol students into multiple groups and allow
students to create their own groups. Instructors can
provide default settings and descriptions for each
group while managing them collectively or
individually. Group material can be saved and
authored collectively from this location. Group
members can create their own discussion forums that
allow them to conduct ongoing conversations, or use
blogs to blog thoughts and ideas for the rest of the
course to comment on, or add journal entries for
private reflection within the group. They can also
create tasks to track the progress of their
deliverables. These tasks can be conducted and
completed by any of the members in the group
(Blackboard, 2010).
Discussion Boards allow members of the class to
communicate with one another asynchronously.
Discussions on the Discussion Board are logged,
organized, and viewable by all class members.
Conversations are grouped into threads that contain
a main posting heading and all related replies. A
course may have one or more discussion board
linked to one or more topics. Discussion boards may
also be created and assigned to several groups within
a class. This structure is usually used with group
projects. Instructors can email, provide feedback,
and grade the assignment of each group individually
(Blackboard, 2010).
Blogs are online web journals that can offer a
resource-rich multimedia environment. They contain
dated entries in reverse chronological order (most
recent first) about a particular topic. Blogs and
journals provide students and instructors with a
social learning tool for expressing their thoughts and
reflecting on their learning, either privately (with the
Instructor) or publicly (with others in the Course).
Blogs are an effective means of sharing knowledge
and materials created and collected by the group
with the rest of the course members. These tools
empower all Course users to create and share ideas,
while instructors maintain the ability to edit or
remove any inappropriate material. Multiple blog
types, including course, group and individual blogs
are available. Instructors can assign a journal to each
user in a course or course group that is accessible by
only the user and the instructor. Group Blogs allow
groups of students to collaboratively post thoughts
and comment on each others’ work while all other
users in the course can view and comment on their
entries. Journal entries can also be made available to
the rest of the users in a course. Individual journals
allow students to record their course experiences and
what they are learning. Group journals allow groups
of Students to reflect collaboratively on their course
work and comment on their fellow group members'
findings (Blackboard, 2010), (Boulos, et al, 2006).
Wikis allow instructors to create places for
courses, organizations, and groups to host
collaborative content and group projects. Course and
organization wikis allow the entire course or
organization to participate. Group wikis allow a
subset of the course or organization members to
work on collaborative projects. Instructors specify
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
270

whether and when students are allowed to view or
edit a particular wiki. Both Students and instructors
can easily create content within the wiki such as
study guides and shared notes. Wikis provide
organizations with a powerful collaborative editing
tool that can be used for any content that requires
collaboration and change tracking, such as meeting
minutes, by-laws, or simple pieces of content.
Instructors can also use the wiki for collaborative
group projects where the wiki’s history and
participation summary tools give the instructor
greater insight when assessing individual
contributions as well as throughout the collaborative
process. Students can use the wiki to collaborate on
content for the course as well as for group projects.
The wiki's collaborative capabilities and history
features help students see what others s have
contributed and help avoid redundancy of effort
(Blackboard, 2010) and (Boulos, et al, 2006).
Although the advantages of Electronic Group
Collaboration tools are many, their implementation
does not ensure a high-quality education. Wikis and
blogs are prone to possible serious quality issues,
because of their free form nature and the
(relative/potential) lack of control over their content.
In an open and collaborative web environment,
anyone can easily post copyrighted material without
the permission of copyright holders, post unsuitable
or misleading content, or edit existing content in a
way that reduces its quality/accuracy. Students may
encounter many problems commonly related to
technological factors, including issues of access,
connection, internet familiarity, etc. Students may
also feel isolated and unmotivated (Saade and Bahli,
2005). Researchers argue there is a relationship
between the instructional design of these tools and
the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness
by students (Muilenburg, and Berge, 2005). During
the online collaborative learning experience,
strategies that promote students’ feelings of
connectedness and belonging appear to be critical to
successful learning (So and Kim, 2005).
Gunawardena and Clsaac (2005) argue that student
retention and satisfaction rely heavily on the ability
of the online system’s medium, materials, and
services to make students feel socially present and
connected to the instructor and other students.
Online learning environments intended to support
collaborative learning should be designed in a way
that considers the social nature of the learning
process (Richardson and Swan, 2003). Thus, student
acceptance of these technologies is one of the
critical factors that should be evaluated in order to
adequately assess whether the successful
implementation of these tools can support teaching-
learning activities and the student experience
(Martins and Kellermans, 2004).
3 METHODOLOGY
The proliferation of courses offered online, and the
way in which technology is used in their delivery
both have effects on the quality of learning (Rovai,
and Barnum, 2003). Students’ acceptance of
Electronic Group Collaboration Technologies is one
of the critical factors that should be evaluated in
order to adequately assess whether the successful
implementation of these tools can support teaching-
learning activities and the student experience
(Martins and Kellermans, 2004).
This research conducts an exploratory study in
students’ acceptance of Electronic Group
Collaboration Tools within the context of higher
education learning software systems. This study
seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. How many Electronic Group Collaborative
Tools do students prefer to use in one class?
2. What Electronic Group Collaborative Tools
are most preferred by students?
This study used a descriptive quantitative
research design. The population of the study
consisted of Online learning students from 8
different programs in 4 different universities. Data
were obtained through convenience sampling of the
respondents. A questionnaire was designed to
capture data on the following variables: discussion
boards (DB), blogs (BL), journals (JR), and wikis
(WK). The questionnaire was composed of three
sections. The first section consisted of personal
demographic questions (i.e., age, sex, GPA, and
declared major). The second section consisted of
questions that examined the students’ familiarity
with computer technology. The third section was
comprised of questions that explored students’
acceptance toward Electronic Group Collaboration
Tools. A total of 30 questions were developed to
capture information on all variables. Each statement
on the questionnaire was based on the Likert scale,
and each answer was assigned weights to establish
normally distributed scores. The weights of the
responses from the questionnaire were assigned as
follows:
1. Refers to “Strongly Agree”, 2. Refers to “Agree”
3. Refers to “Neutral”, 4. Refers to “Disagree”
5. Refers to “Strongly Disagree”
In total, 410 questionnaires were randomly
STUDENTS' ACCEPTANCE OF E-GROUP COLLABORATION LEARNING
271

distributed. All of the survey responses were
successfully received, and only 11 were incomplete.
The online surveys were conducted and collected
between August 09, 2010 and August 16, 2010. In
order to ensure the reliability of the test
measurement, Cronbach’s alpha was computed and
reported for each scale that measured the concepts
being examined. The overall alpha score for the pilot
data was 0.975, which indicated high reliability of
the instrument.
4 FINDINGS
Table (1) displays students’ acceptance of the
number of Electronic Collaboration Group in one
class.
Table 1: Preferred Number of E-Group Collaboration
Tools Used in One Course.
Priority
Number of Collaboration Tools in
One Course
Percentage
1 1 E- Group Collaboration Tool 47%
2 2 E- Group Collaboration Tools 32%
3 3 E-Group Collaboration Tools 17%
4
More than 3E-Group
Collaboration Tools
4%
The majority of students examined (47%)
believed that a course should have only one E-Group
Collaboration Tool. 32% of the respondents
indicated that two E-Group Collaboration Tools are
more appropriate per course. 17% of the respondents
chose three E-Group Collaboration Tools per course,
and 4% of the respondents chose more than three E-
Group Collaboration Tools per course.
Table (2) displays students’ acceptance of the
importance of Electronic Group Collaboration Tools
used in higher education software systems.
Table 2: Preferred E-Group Collaboration Tools.
Priority Group Collaboration Tool Percentage
1 Discussion Boards 72%
2 Blogs 13%
3 Wikis 9%
4 Journals 6%
The majority of students (72%) viewed
Discussion Forums as the most preferred Electronic
Group Collaboration Tools used in the courses
they’ve taken. 13% of the respondents viewed Blogs
were the most preferred choice. 9% of the
respondents chose Wikis, and 6% of the respondents
chose Journals as the most preferred E-Group
Collaboration Tools.
5 DISCUSSION
Understanding students’ perceptions regarding the
E-Group Collaboration Tools used in Higher
Education Learning Systems is the first step in
developing and implementing a successful online
learning environment. It is necessary for institutions
of higher education to focus on learners’ satisfaction
in order to continuously improve online learning
programs. Such careful monitoring will ensure the
success and viability of online learning programs.
Group learning is a good way of encouraging
learning interaction. A good e-learning system
should do well in promoting the use of group
learning styles (Newman, et al, 2008). If effectively
deployed, discussion boards, blogs, wikis, and
journals could offer a way to enhance students'
learning experiences, and deepen levels of learners'
engagement and collaboration within the higher
education e-learning environments. The primary
objective of this study was to determine the best
ways to integrate E-Group Collaborative Tools into
existing e-Learning systems by identifying the most
preferred E-Group Collaborative Tools, and the
number of tools students expect/accept to see in one
class.
In reference to the first question of this study, the
findings suggest that the majority of the examined
students (47%) prefer to have only one E-Group
Collaborative Tool per class. Almost 80% of the
examined students indicated that two E-Group
collaborative tools per class is the maximum number
they prefer to see in one class. Many students
indicated that the majority of class activities in e-
learning environments are individual-related
activities, and that the number of group-related
activities that require the use of group collaboration
is usually 1-2 per class. The majority of students
also indicated that they prefer to use the same type
of technology in one class, and that the use of more
than one technology could add more work load if
students are not familiar with the use of that
technology. Twenty one (21%) of the examined
students indicated that they prefer the use of 3 or
more E-Group Collaboration Tools per class. Most
of these students indicated that they were more
technology-oriented and that the availability of 3 or
more tools would diversify the technology used and
expose them to a variety of learning methods.
Juniors were more open to trying new technologies
than seniors. Given how recently blogs, wikis, and
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
272

journals have been added to higher education E-
Learning systems, the preference of most seniors is
understandable, as they were exposed to only one
tool (Discussion Boards) in the past few years. Many
of the students that did not choose several E-Group
Collaboration Tool expressed concern over their
level of computer competency, and factors including
issues of access, connection, internet familiarity, that
could affect their use of more technologies, which is
also supported by the findings of (Al-Fadhli, 2010).
The second question of this study is concerned
with the most preferred E-Group Collaboration Tool
by students. The overwhelming majority of
examined students (72%) chose discussion boards.
The remaining 28% were divided among blogs
(13%), wikis (9%), and journals (6%). Students’
answers clearly indicated that the majority of
students did not understand the key features of these
tools, or the main differences among these tools with
the exception of discussion boards. Most examined
students indicated that they did not see a need for an
additional tool since discussion boards offered many
of the functions required for their group assignment
work. Discussion boards can be assigned at the class
level or at the group level. They can be classified by
topic or by time. Students are able to post entries
viewable by all class members, or specific group.
They are able to attach text and media files if
needed, and most importantly most students are
familiar with them. Most students also indicated that
Discussion Boards are usually used either for
discussion activities, or as a group area to discuss
work related to class project. The remaining 28% of
examined students indicated that discussion boards
should not be used in place of blogs, wikis, and
journals, and that the nature of the group assignment
should be the catalyst in deciding the type of E-
Group Collaborative Tool used.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The number and quality of Electronic Group
Collaboration tools in higher education learning
systems have been on the rise. Similar to email,
discussion boards, blogs, wikis, and journals will
increasingly be among the key modes of interaction
that students can be expected to use in their
university education learning processes (Al-Fadhli,
2010), (Blackboard, 2010), and (So and Kim, 2005).
Understanding students’ perceptions regarding these
tools is the first step in developing and
implementing a successful online learning
environment.
The findings of this study suggest that the
majority of online students in higher education
prefer only one E-Group Collaboration Tool per
class. Two types of E-Group Collaboration Tools is
the maximum number expected by the great majority
of students. Many students preferred consistency on
the type of E-Group Collaboration tools being used,
and did not want to spend additional time learning
how to use the tool. Many of the examined students
preferred the use of discussion boards over blogs,
wikis, and journals, mainly because many of them
have been using discussion boards for years, or
because they did not see the additional benefits
involved in using blogs, wikis, and journals over
discussion boards. The findings also suggest that in
order to enhance the learning experience of online
students, higher education institutions need to
address the issues of computer competency, and
technological factors including issues of access,
connection, and internet familiarity, as they have
direct impact on students’ acceptance of the utilized
E-Group Collaboration Tools. Universities should
dedicate areas within each online course, and within
the orientation process of both students and
instructors to educate them about the available E-
Group Collaboration Tools, and how to use them.
Universities should also make available training and
help materials to explain the features and the
associated benefits of using such tools. More
importantly, instructors and course administrators
should be educated, not only on the technical aspects
of these tools, but also on the proper use of these
tools. Instructors and course administrators should
be able to judge what E-Group Collaboration tool
would best serve a specific group exercise, and how
to decide on the number and the type of E-Group
Collaborative Tools to be used in class.
REFERENCES
Al-Fadhli, S., 2010. Factors Influencing the Acceptance of
Distance Learning: A Case Study of Arab Open
University in Kuwait”, Online Journal of Distance
Learning Education. Vol 13-3.
Becker, D., Dwyer, M. 1998. The impact of student
verbal/visual learning style preference on
implementing groupware in the classroom. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(2), 61-69.
Black, G. 2002. Student assessment of virtual teams in an
online management course. Journal of Business
Administration Online, 1(2).
Blackboard Manual, “Blackboard Learn Manual. 2010.
V9.1.
Boulos, M., Marambe, I., Wheeler, S. 2006. Wikis, blogs
and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools
STUDENTS' ACCEPTANCE OF E-GROUP COLLABORATION LEARNING
273

for virtual collaborative clinical practice and
education. BMC Medical Education Vol, 6:41.
Clark, R. E. 1994. Media will never influence learning.
Education Technology Research and Development,
37(1):57-66.
Cuban, L. 2003. Oversold and underused: computers in
the classroom. Cambridge’, MA: Harvard University
Press
Gunawardena, C., Clsaac, M. 2004. Distance education. In
D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology (2nd ed.)
(pp. 355–395). Bloomington, IN: Association for
Educational Communications & Technology.
Hackley, P., Webster, J. 1997. Teaching Effectiveness in
Technology-Mediated Distance Learning. Academy of
Management Journal, 40 (6), 1282 - 1309.
Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., Turoff, M. 1999.
Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for
the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-
method approach. Journal of A synchronous Learning
Networks , 4(2), 103-125.
Jermann, P., Soller, A., Muehlenbrock, M. 2005. From
Mirroring to Guiding: A Review of State of the Art
Technology for Supporting Collaborative Learning,
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education archive Volume 15 Issue 4.
Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking University Teaching”,
London: Routledge Falmer.
Martins, L., Kellermans, F. 2004. A Model of Business
School Student’s Acceptance of a Web- Based Course
Management System. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 3(1), 7-28.
Meier, P., Simon, B. 2000. Reengineering Undergraduate
Teaching by Introducing Internet-based Learning
Information Systems. Springer, Vienna.
Muilenburg, L., Berge, Z. 2005. Student barriers to online
learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education,
26(1), 29-48.
Myers, J. 1991. Cooperative learning in heterogeneous
classes. Cooperative Learning, 11(4).
Newman, D.R, Webb, B., Cochrane, C. 2008. A content
analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-
to-face and computer supported group learning,
Queens University Belfast, Information Management
Dept.
Richardson, J., Swan, K. 2003. Examining Social Presence
in Online Courses in Relation to Students' Perceived
Learning and Satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
Rovai, A. P., Barnum, K. T. 2003. On-Line Course
Effectiveness: An Analysis of Student Interactions and
Perceptions of Learning. Journal of Distance
Education, 18(1), 57-73.
Saade, R., Bahli, B. 2005. The Impact of Cognitive
Absorption on Perceived Usefulness and Perceived
Ease of Use in On-line Learning: Information and
Management, 42, 317-327.
Simon, B., Haghirian, P., Schlegelmilch, P. 2002. Case
Study Teaching via Collaborative Inormation
Technology”. Proceedings of ECIS (European
Conference on Information Systems.) Gdansk, Poland.
So, H., Kim, B. 2005. Instructional methods for computer
supported collaborative learning (CSCL): A review of
case studies”. Paper presented at the 10th CSCL
Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
274