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

across the five levels of knowledge construction corresponds with previous findings that few messages reach the
fourth and fifth level and that a majority of messages are at the first level (Gunawardena et al., 1997; McLoughlin &
Luca, 2002). This could be explained by the learning habits of students. Students, especially freshmen, were not yet
used to testing syntheses, summarizing agreements, and applying newly constructed knowledge. They applied more
often the first level of knowledge construction, which is a prerequisite for a discussion and for maintaining the flow
of interaction. These contributions are in a way indispensable in order to elicit contributions at a higher level of
knowledge construction. Because the discussion tasks were new to students for each theme in our study, we did not
expect significant differences between the discussion themes. Related studies of De Wever, Van Keer, Schellens, and
Valcke (2007) involving content analyses of students’ asynchronous discussions in similar Flemish setting indicate
that there was no gradual increase of students’ level of knowledge construction throughout the different discussion
themes because the discussion tasks of each theme were new to students.
Limitation and conclusions
It has to be noted that the results should be considered in a cautious way as the study is applied in specific settings.
The findings of this research may only be applicable in similar contexts. It also has to be pointed out that although
we have identified a series of differences and similarities between the two cultural groups, individual differences
should not be neglected. Furthermore, the differences in the results of the two settings can be explained not only in
relation to cultural differences, but also in relation to the new instructional experience for the Chinese students. In
addition, although we tried to control several educational setting variables, we realize that other variables might
exist, such as social and economic environment, educational systems, and campus environment, which might have
influenced student satisfaction, participation, and performance in the online collaborative learning environment.
At the content analysis level, quantitative content analysis was opted because of the large amount of messages.
Future research could include more detailed and qualitative discourse analysis. In addition, the levels of knowledge
construction might be influenced by the types of discussion tasks and structuring support, which could be examined
in following studies. Other coding schemes could be used in future studies.
In conclusion, this study confirms that there are significant cultural differences in student satisfaction, academic
performance, and knowledge construction in an online collaborative learning environment. It also indicates that
students’ perceived satisfaction and their performance in online collaborative learning are important factors to
determine whether an e-learning approach can be applied in a sustainable way. Furthermore, the study indicates that
learning with peers may benefit not only the overall individual performance, it may also enhance team performance
by increasing the quality of team product. Students can learn to formulate ideas and opinions more effectively
through group discussion. Based on social constructivism and activity theory, the online learning system can enrich
collaborative learning activities for knowledge construction. Results of this study confirm that online learning system
can enrich students’ collaborative learning activities and their knowledge construction via group interaction.
Finally we gain insights from this study that culture is an important variable to consider with regard to instructional
design in different cultural contexts. Student satisfaction with and the level of knowledge construction in the elearning
environment are also important variables influencing student learning, especially in a student-centered elearning
environment. Understanding these variables would be helpful for instructors to design meaningful
educational activities to enhance student satisfaction and performance and to promote student knowledge
construction through social and peer interaction.
References
Anderson, M. (2000). Individual characteristics and web-based courses. In C. R. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the Word
Wide Web (pp. 47−73). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: The quality of computermediated
interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology 34(1), 31–43.
Baron, J. (1998) Teaching on-line across cultures. In Gooley, A., Pearson, C. & Towers, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Open Learning, Brisbane (Brisbane, Queensland Open Learning Network), 67–72.
134