Understanding and Reducing Stress in Collaborative E-Learning - Annotated Bibliography Example

Critical Analysis and Problem Definition Report Paper: Lawless, N. & Allan, J. (2004). Understanding and reducing stress in collaborative e-Learning, Electronic Journal on e-Learning 2 (1), pp. 121-128. 1. General Description 1.1. Research question Online collaboration is progressively becoming a widespread practice in education and in organisations – specifically in teleworking, i.e. working while using the phone or while linked to the Internet. It is assumed that this can of itself bring about stress for collaborators. However, the authors believe that there are ways by which stress can be taken out of the context of online collaborative activities through the organisation of the online working practice. The research question addressed by this paper is what techniques there are of decreasing stress brought about by online collaborations and what rules there may be for structuring online collaborative exercises to make sure that stress is avoided or at least reduced (Lawless and Allan, 2004, p. 121). 1.2. Relevance This research is relevant to practitioners, particularly to collaborative online groups, i.e. e-teams or virtual teams in organisations and in education because this research addresses the stressful effects of online collaborative exercises and aims to discover the reasons behind why stress is experienced from this kind of activity (Lawless and Allan, 2004, p. 121). It contributes to the practice of e-Learning because the lessons obtained from this study may be applied to the process of creating an introductory activity that will allow the participants to become aware of certain issues and actions that influence online collaborative activities. The intention behind this is for e-teams to recognize these factors early on and thus be able to function more quickly than those who were not prepared in such a way. It is hoped that through this process of early detection, collaborative online working will be less stressful (Lawless and Allan, 2004, p. 126). 2. Research Methodology 2.1. Theory/theories used The authors referred to the findings of Salmon et. al. (2000) wherein “technical aspects” and “collaboration” were identified as barriers to teleworking, as well as that of Walther (1996) which stated that relationships are created more slowly online than face-to-face (Lawless and Allan, 2004, p. 124). Hogg’s (1992) view on group cohesion and the term group development process as described by Tuckman (1965) were also used. The terms “Asynchronous Anxiety” as defined by Crouch and Montecino (1997) and “Technostress” as described by Gardner and Scheemerhom (1988) were used in the discussion (Lawless and Allan, 2004, p. 125). 2.2. Usage of theory/theories The theories were used to provide background information to the study. The authors referred to the abovementioned theories and published studies to present the current research as well as support its findings (Lawless and Allan, 2004, p. 123). 2.3. Contribution to theory The current study supports and extends the theories used in the discussion. These theories relate to the work done by Lawless and Allan which centres on what they define as “e-stress” (2004, p. 126). 2.4. Paradigm The research was conducted under the qualitative paradigm. The research made use of a literature review and a field study that utilised questionnaires (Lawless and Allan, 2004, p. 123). 2.5. Research methods The authors made use of a literature review to present the past studies regarding the research topic and to support the current research. For the study itself, a short web-based questionnaire was answered by the participants before they began the online management course; this was followed by another questionnaire that was answered after the course was finished. This was conducted to determine the occurrence of stress in the students as well as its causes (Lawless and Allan, 2004, p. 123). 2.6. Development of a rigorous research design The authors were able to develop a rigorous research design. The researchers used questionnaires to determine the effects of such factors as technology provision, user technology skills, culture, student expectations, tutor support, time pressure, and task participation on the stress experienced by those engaging in online collaborative learning (Lawless and Allan, 2004, p. 124). 3. References LAWLESS, N. & ALLAN, J. (2004). Understanding and reducing stress in collaborative e-Learning, Electronic Journal on e-Learning 2 (1), pp. 121-128. Paper: Okamoto, T. (2003). E-Collaborative Learning Technologies and e-Pedagogy, Proceedings of The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, IEEE Computer Society. 1. General Description 1.1. Research question Rising interest in the Internet has propelled it from a medium for individual learning to becoming a medium for collaborative learning. Taking into account the recent boom in information technology, Okamoto (2003) believes that the common policies for online collaborative activities should be examined and reconsidered. This research centres on collaborative learning and the roles of its participants in the context of e-Learning. It also seeks to explain why there is a need for the standardisation of technology for online collaborative learning (Okamoto 2003, p.1). 1.2. Relevance This paper is relevant to practitioners, particularly to those utilising e-Learning networks. These may include IT professionals in education, teachers, and students. Since its popularisation, e-Learning has been one of the preferred tools of practitioners and researchers in the field of education. This research tries to standardise learning and teaching in the context of e-Learning by conducting research on resource development and e-pedagogy. This is important because online collaborative learning gives opportunities for teams to work together in the achievement of shared goals (Okamoto 2003, p.1). 2. Research Methodology 2.1. Theory/theories used The author refers to Norris et. al. (2003) who identified the three chief areas wherein there have been advancements in e-Learning, i.e. “Web infrastructure, applications integration, and e-Knowledge” (Okamoto 2003, p.2). He also draws from Inaba and Okamoto (1997) and Hooper (1992) to differentiate between collaborative and group learning (Okamoto 2003, p.1). 2.2. Usage of theory/theories The theories are used to support the current research. Okamoto (2003) drew on the three areas for advancement in e-Learning proposed by Norris et. al. (2003) to construct the “Standardisation of Collaborative Learning in e-Learning” (Okamoto 2003, p. 2). 2.3. Contribution to theory The research extends and supports the theories mentioned in the paper. The author stresses that there is a need for the standardisation of collaborative learning, building on the work of Norris et. al. (2003) (Okamoto 2003, p. 2). 2.4. Paradigm The study was done under the qualitative paradigm. Okamoto (2003) sought to explain the need for standardisation in e-Learning by referring to the published studies (Okamoto 2003, p. 1). 2.5. Research methods The author made use of a literature review to prove that there is a need for the standardisation of collaborative learning. The first part is an introduction to e-Learning and a description of collaborative learning in e-Learning. The author also discusses the roles of teachers in online collaborative learning as well as the standardisation he proposes (Okamoto 2003, p. 2). 2.6. Development of a rigorous research design In my opinion, the author did not make use of a rigorous research design. The study merely refers to previously published works without much analysis or actual researching done (Okamoto 2003, p. 2). 3. References OKAMOTO, T. (2003). E-Collaborative Learning Technologies and e-Pedagogy, Proceedings of The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, IEEE Computer Society. Paper: Tomsic, A. & Suthers, D. (2006). Discussion Tool Effects on Collaborative Learning and Social Network Structure, Educational Technology & Society, 9 (4), pp. 63-77. 1. General Description 1.1. Research question Tomsic and Suthers (2006) probed into the social network structure of booking officers at a police department and sought to find how comprehension regarding the utilisation of a booking module can be influenced by the integration of an online discussion tool (Tomsic and Suthers 2006, pp. 63). 1.2. Relevance This paper proposes that the establishment of new cooperative bonds is more important than the rate of occurrence of interaction for collaborative learning and social network structures. This study would be relevant to practitioners in information systems, collaborative learning, and social network structures. It benefits organisations dealing with web-based discussion boards and other systems relating to online collaborative efforts (Tomsic and Suthers 2006, pp. 63). 2. Research Methodology 2.1. Theory/theories used The authors drew from theories regarding cooperative learning such as knowledge building theory by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1996), communities of practice theory by Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002), and sociocognitive theory by Bogenrieder (2002). They also referred to studies conducted by Sha and Van Aalst (2003) on knowledge building in a classroom setting and on Social Network Analysis and Knowledge Forum (Wasserman and Faust, 1995). They also looked to Weber (2000) for insight into the terms “goal uncertainty” and “technical uncertainty” and Wellman (1996) for his theory on Computer Supported Social Networks (Tomsic and Suthers 2006, pp. 64-66). In the analysis portion, the authors referred to Scardamalia (2000) and Chan, Lee and Van Aalst (2001) for knowledge building (Tomsic and Suthers 2006, pp. 69). 2.2. Usage of theory/theories The theories mentioned serve as springboards for the current study. The theories on social structure, communities of practice, and knowledge building are used as framework for the work done by Tomsic and Suthers (2006, p. 63). 2.3. Contribution to theory The study done by Tomsic and Suthers (2006) support and extend the abovementioned theories. Like the previous studies, particularly that of Sha and Van Aalst (2003), the study conducted by the researchers measures the qualities of individual social interaction in relation to collaborative work (Tomsic and Suthers 2006, pp. 69). 2.4. Paradigm The research was conducted under the qualitative paradigm. The study design made use of surveys and questionnaires and content analysis (Tomsic and Suthers 2006, pp. 69). 2.5. Research methods The theoretical discussion proved that a Computer Supported Social Network can boost knowledge building in organisations through constant representations and networking. The authors sought to determine whether or not this would occur in practice. To do so, they conducted a study to answer a set of research questions pertaining to the effect/s of discussion tools on collaborative learning and social network structure. Their study design involved introducing a CSSN into an organisation and examining how it affects the social structure of the organisation. The procedure was carried out over a six-week period with participants completing a pre-survey, post-survey, pre-interview, and post-interview. The content and format of the surveys used were crafted by Krackhardt and Haythornthwaite (1998). The objectives of the pre-survey and pre-interview were to gauge the participants’ knowledge of the booking module and the current social structure, respectively. The post-survey aimed to determine what the participants had learned so far about the booking module, and the post-interview was conducted to determine if any alterations had occurred in the social structure (Tomsic and Suthers 2006, pp. 67-69). 2.6. Development of a rigorous research design I think the researchers were able to develop a rigorous research design because they were able to methodically examine whether or not there is a cause-and-effect relationship between online discussion tools and collaborative learning. First, Tomsic and Suthers (2006) provided a comprehensive discussion about the supporting theories and previous studies related to their research. Then, they conducted the study itself, using surveys and interviews. Their research design made use of SAS statistical software as well as the UCINet suite of programs to analyse data. A content analysis was also used to better understand the kinds of interactions taking place on the online discussion tool (Tomsic and Suthers 2006, p. 69). 3. References TOMSIC, A. & SUTHERS, D. (2006). Discussion Tool Effects on Collaborative Learning and Social Network Structure, Educational Technology & Society, 9 (4), pp. 63-77. Read More