January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

Questionnaire on student satisfaction and dissatisfaction with online collaborative learning
After one semester of online collaborative learning, students were asked to fill in a questionnaire about their
satisfaction and dissatisfaction with online collaborative learning. This questionnaire consisted of 15 questions
assessing the satisfaction of collaborative learning and 15 questions for students to choose and rank the aspects that
they like or dislike most. Students were required to report on a Likert scale (from 0 to 6) the extent that a certain
statement was true or false or the extent to which they liked or disliked a certain function of the e-learning
environment. Student satisfaction reflects five dimensions: e-learning function, collaborative learning, peer
contribution, interaction, and group results. Sample questions include: “I am happy that I can work together with
others on the assignments”; “I am happy that working together with others helps me gain a deeper understanding of
the course content”; “Working online with group work (such as wiki) is new and exciting for me”; and “I am
satisfied that each member of my group equally contributes his/her part in the group assignments.” The psychometric
quality of this measurement was confirmed with a Cronbach’s α score higher than .75. In addition, the students also
reported their demographic features and the average time they spent on the online discussion and group work per
week.
Content analysis
The scripts of each group of Flemish and Chinese students were coded and analyzed. The data set comprises the
transcripts of all messages posted during group discussions by these groups during one semester. We applied the
coding scheme of Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) to analyze the distribution of communication types and
the coding scheme of Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson (1997) to analyze the level of social construction of
knowledge. In our research, the complete message was used as the unit of analysis. When a message comprised
elements of two different levels of knowledge construction, the highest level was assigned. The messages in the
transcripts were coded by three independent coders for the Flemish students and three for the Chinese students. The
Chinese and Flemish coders received training by the same researcher to get acquainted with the coding schemes
using the same sample data. The inter-rater reliability was checked by determining percent agreement between the
raters. For the raters of the Flemish group, the percent agreement was .91; for the raters of the Chinese group, the
percent agreement was .86.
Statistical analysis
T-tests were used to analyze the differences between the Chinese and Flemish students regarding their satisfaction
and dissatisfaction with the online collaborative learning. Chi-square analysis was adopted to compare the student
message types and the level of knowledge construction. Furthermore, the achievements of Chinese and Flemish
students in online group assignments were compared. With regard to content analysis of online group discussions,
two coding schemes (Veerman & Veldhuis-diermanse, 2001; & Gunawardena et al., 1997) were used in this study.
Results
Student satisfaction and dissatisfaction with online collaborative learning
Significant differences were found between Chinese and Flemish students regarding their satisfaction and
dissatisfaction with online collaborative learning. The Chinese students reported a higher level of satisfaction with
the e-learning functions, online collaboration, and peer contribution compared to the Flemish students (p < .05).
Compared to the Flemish group, the Chinese group was more satisfied with the equal contribution of group members
(p < .01). In addition, the Chinese group preferred working together with others on the assignments than did the
Flemish group (p < .01). Chinese students also reported to a larger extent that the online collaborative learning is
“new and exciting” compared to the Flemish group. The Flemish students were more satisfied with the final results
of the online group work compared to the Chinese group (p < .001), and they spent more time in average on the
online group collaborative learning, 4.85 hours per week versus 2.26 hours per week for the Chinese students. With
regard to the dissatisfaction of students, the Chinese group more often reported a lack of interaction between students
and teacher in asynchronous group discussions compared to the Flemish group. The Flemish group reported to a
130