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

larger extent that working on the tasks online was time-consuming compared to the Chinese group (p < .001). The
Chinese students were less happy with task division in online group work than the Flemish students. The main
differences between the two groups are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Student satisfaction and dissatisfaction with online collaborative learning
Mean Sig. a
Chinese Flemish
Satisfaction with online collaborative learning
Satisfaction with collaborative learning in the e-learning environment 3.65 3.24 .001**
Satisfaction with peer interaction within the group 3.60 3.56 .83
Satisfied with the functions of the e-learning environment 3.76 3.37 .030**
Satisfied with the final results on the group assignment 3.85 4.66 .000***
Satisfaction with equal group member contribution 3.43 2.83 .02**
Satisfaction with the opportunity that group members can work
together on assignments
4.29 3.83 .009**
Satisfaction that working together can help me gain a deeper
4.48 3.64 .000***
understanding of the course content.
Dissatisfaction with online collaborative learning
Time-consuming 3.24 4.50 .000***
Dissatisfaction with task division 2.76 2.25 .010**
Lack of interaction with teacher 4.09 3.43 .001**
* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001.
a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni correction is applied
Despite the differences, similarities between Flemish and Chinese students were also found. Both Chinese and
Flemish students reported that it was an advantage to be able to work at their own pace, and found it was an
advantage that each group member could contribute to the group assignments in online collaborative learning. Both
Chinese and Flemish students reported that online collaborative learning helped them to gain more knowledge than if
they would have studied alone. They also stated that they had learned a lot, considering the time they’ve put into the
online collaborative learning assignments. The Chinese and Flemish students were similarly satisfied with the peer
interaction and with the technical help they received from the course coordinators.
As to what the students were satisfied and dissatisfied with, we found that the Flemish students liked working at their
own pace most of all, while the Chinese students best liked the fact that they could work together with others on the
assignments. What the Flemish students disliked most was that working on the tasks online was time-consuming,
whereas the biggest problem the Chinese group reported was the lack of interaction between students and teacher.
Student online learning performance and group achievement
Students’ online group work was assessed by two teachers in each context. One teacher, who is bilingual, assessed
both student groups; and a second teacher in the Flemish and Chinese context assessed the work of Flemish and
Chinese student groups separately. The assessment criteria were the same for both settings and were communicated
beforehand to all teachers and students involved. The assessment was based on the frequency of group-member
contributions to the assignment (the system can track all member contributions for each task), and the quality of the
group work. For each task, each group got a score; and the final group score was the average score for all group
assignments. Student group achievements were compared, and the results show that, in general, the Flemish students
had a slightly higher mean score than the Chinese students (Table 2).
Table 2. Selected student group scores of online group work
Mean (SD) of assignment score (out of 100)
Group achievement Flemish groups Chinese groups Cohen’s d
G1 59 (11) 54.7 (16) 0.31
G2 57 (11.6) 51.8 (14) 0.40
G3 50.5 (13) 52 (15) 0.26
131