3.x“... .,
. . u‘ . t \
a. .

(x
14:
.

8.
.~
¢

‘ 5..
‘J Q‘01

.1 .74 '91

.fiflwfi.

A 2%. {x
a... .,

.z .

raw.

. a..."

. .
in...
a h..

 

1. .
I— .I
,. a «a .

 

a”?
A

finJ‘rkwmfl
Np

.

m...“

I
a
7 Mn
n.
V 3-. ‘1
I. n
A i?
an.
. on
a...“ 3 .
. - ‘ ‘
m :9...
. u. .
$3,»
> v ‘
J; ...
'1. ¢ 11-... J
.‘K -I‘.
”w v: 332%!

1“,",

mg? is ,
$1.55.... .1.»

 

.4111

(F. .
afififlv L5
f. Il-

afififi .
V.

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ /; f 1-6, Lit",
if 5 W 5
__ r This is to certify that the
U BRARY dissertation entitled
Michigan State
University
THE STRUGGLE FOR VOICE:
STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN COLLABORATIVE
ONLINE GROUPS
presented by
Regina 0. Smith

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD.

Major Professor's Signature

5 7'y3

 

Date

MSU Is on ”motive Action/Equal Opportunly Institution

-.-..a--.—.—.--—-.—-—-_p—--—--

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
_ To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

(n
,r l
"U

(1:)
2‘ ct)
.h

2
U

EV:
cm (:0

 

*-

gufslid'!

 

 

, CC “1 4 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRCIDateDue.p65-p.15

 

THE STRUGGLE FOR VOICE: STUDENT
EXPERIENCES IN COLLABORATIVE ONLINE
GROUPS
BY

Regina 0. Smith

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2003

ABSTRACT

STRUGGLING FOR VOICE: STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN COLLABORATIVE
ONLINE GROUPS

By

Regina 0. Smith

The literature on small collaborative groups in online courses revealed that these
approaches to learning are largely based on speculative and theoretical assumptions about
the advantages of learning in these contexts. Nevertheless, we know little about the
reality of working within small collaborative online groups. The literature on small
collaborative online groups focuses on the cognitive and communication technologies
designed to support the collaborative process. These bodies of literature minimize the
ways in which the intrapsychic and interpersonal dynamics shapes learners’ perceptions
of the meaning and significance of what they learn. Moreover, these studies often
overlook the tensions between the group and the individual (Bennis & Shepard, 1956)
and the unique psychodynamic relationships between the learner and the computer
(Reeves & Nash, 1996). These issues are well documented in face-to-face groups, but are
largely ignored in online courses. In other words, we know about the theoretical
advantages of collaborative learning online but less about the reality of learning in these
contexts.

The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of learners’
perceptions of their experiences with collaborative learning approaches that utilize small
online groups, the issues learners faced, and the ways learners negotiated those issues in

an online context. This study contributes to our understanding of the dynamics and

processes associated with online collaborative learning. These dynamics include the
tensions between the group and the individual, the possibilities for individuation, and the
psychodynamic relationship between the computer and the learner.

A sixteen-week online graduate course in education, fashioned around the
principles of consensus collaborative and problem-based learning was selected for study.
Twenty—five of the twenty-six students agreed to participate, representing a wide diversity
of culture, race, gender, professional experience, and background. Based on their
representation of the diversity, three of the eight learning groups in the course were
selected for indepth analysis. The data sources included in—depth interviews, background
questionnaires, participant’s reflective journals, debriefing papers written at the
conclusion of work on each of the three problems, and archives of the groups’ discussion
boards and chat rooms.

The findings of this study suggest that online group work represents a location in
which members rework their sense of self as a learner and a group member. The
processes of group transformation, the human computer interaction, individual
transformation, and the socio-cultural process associated with consensus problem-based
learning influences these opportunities.

This study allows faculty, learners, as well as those with other interests in small
group learning in online collaborative contexts to reconsider the issues these learners
face. Therefore, the results of this study can enable higher and adult educators to
recognize additional issues that might affect learners’ experiences in small collaborative
online learning groups. This awareness can equip them to more fully attend to

underlying psychological issues in these groups.

COPYRIGHT BY
REGINA 0. SMITH
2003

I dedicate this dissertation to the glory of God and to the memory of my son, Christopher
Lee Smith, who died in the middle of my doctoral program. God’s grace sustained me
throughout this process. My son’s life was a symbol of faith, courage, and persistence
that helped me remain steadfast despite the odds. I am very grateful for his life and his
wonderful spirit that remains a part of me forever.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe a great deal of thanks to my three mentors and friends who encouraged and
supported me through this process. First, my utmost thanks to Dr. John Dirkx, my
advisor, mentor, and friend who continually pushed my thinking throughout my doctoral
program and especially during this study. His support and friendship was more than I
could have ever asked. Second, Dr. Christopher Dunbar, who also served as a mentor,
friend, and doctoral committee member for providing humor to lift my spirits and his
time to review initial drafts. Third, to Dr. Gloria Kielbaso my mentor and friend who also
provided unending support. Thank you also to my doctoral committee members Dr. Ann
Austin and Dr. Punyashloke Mishra for support and encouragement.

It is said that it takes a whole village to raise a child. I want to add that it takes a
community of colleagues, friends, and family to persist through both a doctoral program
and a dissertation. My thanks goes out to Liliana Mina, Julie Brockman, and Patricia
Farrell for being a part of my dissertation writing committee and the many hours of
reading the first raw drafts of my work. Liliana, thanks for listening. To Kimberly
VanDerLinDen for editorial support, friendship and encouragement, thank you. To my
friends for understanding when I totally neglected them; I truly thank you.

I give a heartfelt thanks to my family especially my brothers Pervis and Gregory
who prayed and called regularly to encourage me. Finally, I thank my grandchildren

Shawn and Jada for providing love and strength in the innocence of their youth.

vi

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Investigators’ Background
The Research Problem
Inquiry Audiences
Limitations of the Study

Review of the Literature

Historical Background of Distance Learning
Collaborative Learning

Essential Elements of Collaborative Learning
Group Development and Group Dynamics
Human - Computer Interaction

Summary

Methodology
Organization of the Chapter
Assumptions and Theoretical Position
Research Design of Preliminary Study
Context and Setting
Selection of Participants
Data Sources
Background Questionnaire
Learner Interviews
Instructor Interviews
Debriefing Papers
Reflective Journals
Archived Discussion and Chat Room Records
Results of Preliminary Analysis
Participant Selection and Data Analysis for the Current Study
Data Analysis
Presentation of the Findings

Study Context And The Small Groups
The Course
The Groups
Group One
Group Two
Group Three
Summary

vii

Chapter 5 The Results Of The Cross Case Analysis
Sources of Ambivalence
The Group As Teacher
Absence of traditional guidance to work through the
assigned problems
De-authorizing the teacher
Their new roles as teachers
The Individual In The Collaborative Group
Cycle of emotionality
Consensus as win/lose
Individuality and voice
The Diversity In The Group
Encountering diversity
Hitting a wall
Attempting to break through the wall
The Coping Strategies '
Surrogate Teachers
Minimizing Conflict
Forming Coalitions
Limiting Discussion
Engaging in Fantasy
The Consequences Of The Coping Strategies
Unsafe Spaces
Perceptions Of Unequal Workloads
Glimmers of Hope
Learning Outcomes
Glimmers of Growth
Chapter Summary

Chapter 6 Discussion, Implications, and Conclusion
Interpretation of the Findings
Group Transformation
The Human-Computer Interaction
Individual Transformation
The Social-Cultural Processes of Consensus and Problem-
Based Learning
Consensus
Joining new disciplinary communities
Heterogeneous groups
Implications For Practice
Professional development
Course design
Recommendations For Future Research
Conclusion
Personal Reflections

viii

74
75
75
75

78
79
82
83
85
88
91
91
95
98
103
104
109
113
114
117
120
120
125
126
126
130
134

137
138
138
146
148
153

153
155
157
160
163
166
168
169
169

Appendices

References
Table

Figure

Appendix A: Email Letter to Participants
Appendix B: Background Questionnaire
Appendix C: Student Interview Protocol
Appendix D: Informed Consent

Participants

Cycle of emotion

ix

172
173
175
179
182

52

83

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This study emerged from my increasing awareness of the disconnection between
theories about constructivist learning (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992) and my experiences as a
learner working with these types of teaching strategies in face-to—face settings. One such
constructivist (Duffy & J onassen, 1992) approach that I regularly encountered was
collaborative small group work. Theorists such as Abercrombie (1960), Bruffee (1999),
Flannery (1994), Gerlach (1994), and Merriam & Cafferella (1999) contend that when
learners work collaboratively in small groups to resolve problems, they are both
motivated to learn and they acquire essential skills to survive in a global society.
According to these theorists, as small groups work on problems, they are afforded
opportunities to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Moreover, the
small group may provide a social atmosphere where all learners are afforded an
opportunity to share, consider, challenge one another’s ideas, and co-constr'uct new
knowledge (Bruffee, 1999).

Nevertheless, I encountered numerous challenges while working in small groups,
which lefi me frustrated, unmotivated, and resistant to small group work. As a learner, I
participated in numerous types of small groups. In some groups we merely brainstormed
for a few, while in others we were required to produce a synthesized group effort. The
latter experience was especially problematic. The need to adjust my calendar to meet
with the group outside the scheduled classroom times created personal and professional

conflicts. Working with both learners who contributed little to the group as well as those

who dominated group discussions created emotional tensions that negatively influenced
my motivation to learn and persist in the course. Furthermore, as an African-American
female in groups comprised primarily of European American learners, I often felt that
other learners either dismissed my ideas or unevenly focused attention on my
contributions as if I was speaking for all African Americans. Casual conversations with
friends revealed that other learners shared similar feelings about small group work.

Moreover, my understanding of the underlying psycho-dynamic issues inherent in
all group work helped me to understand that small groups can be “emotional
battlegrounds” (Brookfield & Preskill, 1999 p. 40). These battlegrounds are
characterized by paradoxical tensions between the individual and the group (Smith &
Berg, 1987) that reflects unconscious and unresolved issues around authority and
intimacy that members bring to the group (Bennis & Shepard, 1956). Furthermore, while
most constructivist (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992) approaches to learning address the
cognitive aspects of learning, they neglect these paradoxical tensions which shape
learners’ perceptions of meaning and the significance of what is being learned (Dirkx &
Deems, 1994).

A number of online educators promote online learning as a way to bring the
challenges of collaborative learning in face-to-face environments into bold relief.
Proponents of online learning (Curtis & Lawson, 2001; Dede, 1996; Harasim, 1987;
Harasim, Starr, Teles, & Turoff, 1995; Hiltz, 1994; Hiltz, 1998; McKnight, 2000;
Saunders, 1998) cite several advantages of the online environment that make it ideal for
collaborative learning. The ongoing nature of asynchronous group meetings negates the

need to coordinate schedules to meet with group members (McConnell, 2000). Moreover,

these educators claim that contextualized content and active learning strategies within
collaborative learning approaches result in increased learner motivation, persistence, and
learning outcomes. I was most intrigued by scholars such as Dunbrovsky, Keisler, &
Sethan (1991), Harasim (1987), McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel (1987), Kiesler & McGuire
(1986), Sproull & Kiesler (1986), and Weisband (1992), who claimed that online
environments created equal opportunities for all learners to participate because social-
cultural features such as gender and race were less salient.

A review of the literature, however, revealed that learners face many
communication and technological challenges when working collaboratively in small
online groups. In fact, the text-based environment as well as the technology access and
experience disparities may exacerbate these challenges (Bernard, Beatriz, & St. Piere,
2000; Bullen, 1998). Yet, I remained curious about the psycho-dynamic issues learners
faced in this environment. Do these issues disappear in an online context? What do
learners say about their collaborative experiences as they work in small online groups?
What can educators learn about their experiences in this context? The purpose of this
study was to develop an understanding of learners’ perceptions of their experiences with
collaborative learning approaches that utilized small online groups, as well as the issues
learners faced, and the ways in which learners negotiated those issues in an online

context.

Investigator’s Background
I have been deeply concerned about the experience of learning for a long time.

My earliest memories of learning are filled with the absolute terror I felt in the classroom.

I received good grades, but I remained very fearful of speaking out in the classroom. I
remember crying if the teacher called upon me to come to the front of the class. As an
adult, I have since resolved my fears about speaking in the classroom and readily do so
whenever I feel the need. As a teacher, I try to make the learning environment as
comfortable as possible for learners.

I am equally concerned about the use of collaborative learning, especially small
group learning. It appears that educators use these teaching methods without a clear
understanding of online contexts, especially the embedded emotional issues. I am also
deeply committed to using technology in ways that enhance the learning experience.
While I recognize that the content is important, I believe that the learning process is
equally important because it can affect what you learn. I sense a rush to develop
programs and courses online without a hill understanding of the learning experiences and
am disturbed by ill-informed claims about the benefits of learning in this medium. My
concerns for learners and their learning experiences, as well as how they make sense of
their learning environment drive this study. I bring to this study, a strong commitment to
understanding the nature of small group learning and the ways in which the online

environment influences these experiences.

The Research Problem
Inspired by the work of Dewey and others, many educators in adult and higher
education are more cognizant of the need to shift their thinking about teaching and
learning than they were in the past. The shift reflects a desire to better address the

learning needs of adults through attention to more active and contextual learning

experiences (Merriam & Cafferella, 1999). Guided by social constructivism (V ygotsky,
1978), some educators adopt pedagogical strategies such as problem-solving (J onassen,
1997) that allow small groups of learners to co-construct knowledge based on their life
experiences. In this way, they acquire important cognitive leaming skills such as critical
thinking (Brookfield, 1995), psychosocial skills (Brookfield, 1993; Dirkx, 2001), and
political skills (Freire, 1970; Lindemann, 1921).

This shift to more active, contextual, and constructivist learning also addresses the
need for higher education institutions to compete for an adult learner market. As the
world becomes more global and new jobs replace old ones, adults must become skillful
lifelong learners to survive in a global society. Online distance education programs attract
many of the more than 70 million adult learners (Web-based Commission, 2000) based
on both convenience and flexibility (Schrum, 1998; West, 1999). Corporate universities
such as Harcort Brace and Berdgdorf Goodman, as well as for-profit virtual universities
such as The University of Phoenix, compete for this adult market (West, 1999). These
types of institutions offer both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees online (West, 1999) with
the promises of convenience and flexibility (Schrum, 1998). In fact, it is projected that
the number of corporate universities will exceed the number of traditional universities by
the year 2010 (Web-based Commission, 2000). Traditional colleges and universities,
therefore, feel pressure to increase their online distance education offerings both quickly
and efficiently (Schrum, 1998; Sorg & McElhinney, 2000).

Early online course offerings often resembled electronic versions of old
correspondence programs (Boshier, Mohapi, & Boulton, 1997). The programs focused on

the need to transmit information to large numbers of learners with limited learner

interaction (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Learners were largely left to themselves to make
connections and applications to their specific contexts or problem situations. Such
approaches to online learning, however, can leave adult learners feeling isolated (Bullen,
1998) and unmotivated (Garland, 1993), which contributes to procrastination and
eventually attrition (Bernard et a1., 2000; Bullen, 1998; Garland, 1993).

Online educators, therefore, urged instructional designers and instructors to attend
to both the specific nature of the online learning environment (Gunawardena, 1998;
Haraism, 1990; McConnell, 2000) and the experiences of participants in these courses
(Burge, 1994; Sage, 2000). Due to advanced computer-mediated technology, learning
approaches such as small group work became possible (Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer,
& LaGanke, 2002) through the Internet. Scholars therefore, began to recommend social
constructivist (V ygotsky, 1978) and collaborative (Bruffee, 1999) learning strategies for
online environments.

Collaborative learning is an interdependent process in which knowledge is co-
constructed through consensus by negotiating meaning and understanding with peers in
small groups (Bruffee, 1999). The goal of consensus types of collaborative group work
(Abercrombie, 1960; Bruffee, 1999; Crook, 1994) is to shift most of the classroom
authority from the teacher to the learner peer groups. As learners work collaboratively in
small heterogeneous groups, they learn both the course content as well as appropriate
cognitive, psychosocial, and political skills (Abercrombie, 1960; Bruffee, 1999; Crook,
1994) needed to survive in the global society.

While scholars point to the advantages of using collaborative approaches online, a

body of literature reveals that the technological and communication challenges learners

face while working online may in fact exacerbate the problems with small group
collaborative learning (Bernard et. a1, 2000; Bullen, 1998). Researchers found, for
example, that the text-based online environment increased the time needed to make group
decisions because learners’ postings were often untimely (Bullen, 1998; McConnell,
2000; McGrath & Berdahl, 1998; Ragoonaden & Bordeleau, 2000). When learners used
synchronous communication such as chat rooms, decision times increased. For example,
the time required to read, comprehend, and then type responses increased communication
time (McConnell, 2000; Straus & McGrath, 1994). Some learners become adept at
communicating via short sentences or phrases to keep up with the rapid and disjointed
conversation flow (Dennen, 2000). Schedule adjustments to meet with groups online can
limit the convenience of completing coursework, and this inconvenience may be
particularly problematic for adult learners (Bernard et al., 2000). Furthermore, unequal
access to technology can diminish the extent to which learners contribute to the group
discussion (Sage, 2000). Learners with ready access to computers throughout the day
contribute the most to the conversation and therefore, have greater power and influence in
the group decisions (Berdal & Craig, 1996; Sage, 2000).

While numerous studies document the communication and technological
challenges that learners face in collaborating online, surprisingly, little research focuses
on how the intrapsychic and interpersonal dynamics mediate learning within these
contexts (Dirkx & Deems, 1994). Few studies focus on the paradoxical tensions of group
formation and group life (Smith & Berg, 1987), and the human-computer interaction

(Reeves & Nass, 1996).

A group dynamics perspective to online collaborative learning may help to
further illuminate the emotional issues around authority and intimacy that learners need
to negotiate in their online learning experiences. These issues are well documented in the
literature on small face-to-face groups. Bennis and Shepard (1956) contend that as
learners form interdependent relationships to perform tasks, they face emotional issues
around the need to belong to the group, as well as the need to maintain an individual
identity. Researchers (Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Bion, 1961; Smith & Berg, 1987)
maintain that the central issue for individuals when they join a group is the unconscious
tension generated by the conflicting fears of de-individualization (being obliterated into
the group), and of estrangement from the group. Yet, to achieve individuation (a personal
and distinct identity within the group), learners must connect with other group members
to share and empathize with one another’s common fears (Smith & Berg, 1987). True
connections with the group allow individual members to maintain both a group and a
personal identity. These connections, formed by well-developed and differentiated self-
other relationships, allow the group to attend to the task at hand (Dirkx & Deems, 1994;
Smith & Berg, 1987). While considerable research on these issues exists for small groups
working in face-to-face environments, little research focuses on the affective and
emotional dynamics that arise within online collaborative environments. For example,
Reeves and Nass (1996) contend that people unconsciously assign responsibility for
messages and the feelings associated with those messages to the most proximate source
such as the computer rather than the originating source. Their work suggests that
learners’ relationships with the computer may become another dynamic that is unique to

the collaborative online environment.

In summary, online educators promote active and collaborative learning for
rapidly growing online distance education course offerings. Nevertheless, little empirical
evidence exists to provide a deep understanding of collaborative online learning.
Educators base their recommendations on theoretical and speculative assumptions about
the value of collaboration for online learners (Bernard et. al., 2000; Bullen, 1998). That
is, we know what the theory intends, but little about how the learners experience,
perceive, and negotiate the complex processes involved in online collaborative learning.

Understanding learner experiences in these groups will enable adult educators to
more firlly understand and attend to the issues learners face as they work with
collaborative learning approaches within small online groups. The purpose of this study
was to develop an understanding of learners’ perceptions of their experiences with
collaborative learning approaches that utilize small online groups, the issues learners

faced, and the ways in which learners negotiated those issues in an online context.

Inquiry Audiences

This study has the potential to benefit a number of different audiences. First, the
participants, as well as the instructor for this particular online course are interested in the
learners’ experiences. Second, instructors who use consensus types of collaborative work
in small groups during online courses will benefit from the findings because if will enable
them to better facilitate the small groups. Third, managers and members of small online
teams (virtual teams), in settings other than higher education, face the same concerns as
the participants of this study. Other audiences include professional developers who train
faculty and managers to work effectively with a consensus collaborative approach, and

administrators who evaluate faculty teaching effectiveness. Finally, the study was

designed to provide insights for researchers who examine adult learning, online
educational researchers, and small group theorists. Those who work with small online
groups may find a better way to facilitate the issues that can hinder small group work
production. It is my hope that the results fi‘om this study will benefit individual learners,
instructors, administrative leaders, and those leading virtual teams in other settings, by

providing insights emotional issues that might affect online group experiences.

Limitations Of The Study

This study is limited by the methodology and the course design. With regard to
the methodology, retrospective work or drawing conclusions from the stories that people
have recomposed over time is fraught with risk. Daloz, Keen, Keen & Parks (1996)
acknowledges that the stories people tell about themselves may vary in two ways; (1) the
listener and (2) the moment in the life of the storyteller. An examination of all the
members in three of the eight groups in the course helps to increase the likelihood that the
findings suggest something important about small collaborative online group work.
Nevertheless, the three groups represents less than half of the groups within the course.

The course in this study was re—designed and taught online for the first time. It
was the first time the instructor taught online and the first time he used problem-based
learning. Moreover, it was the first time most of the learners enrolled in an online course,
the first time that each of the participants’ encountered problem-based learning, and ill-
structured problems. Thus, the novelty effect, may have increased learner motivation
simply because they were doing something for the first time may have influenced their
attitudes and feelings (Phipps & Meritosis, 2001). These authors contended the novelty

effect is most prevalent during first time distance learning offerings.

10

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter is divided into six parts and examines the pertinent literature on
learner experiences with collaborative learning in small online groups. The first and
second sections provide a brief problem introduction and a review of the historical
distance learning issues that contribute to the problem. The third through sixth sections
serve as the conceptual framework for the study. Finally, the literature review concludes
with a summary of the findings, the purpose of the study, and the research questions.

A number of adult and higher educators promote a shift in thinking about
teaching, learning, and distance education possibilities. This shift reflects changes from
traditional transmission learning approaches to constructivist (Duffy & J onassen, 1992)
and social constructivist (Vygotsky, 1978) approaches. According to Vygotsky, social
constructivism involves learning through meaning making as individuals engage in social
discussion to co-construct knowledge through activities such as problem-solving. A shift
to social constructivist models of learning requires a focus on learner-centered instruction
(Barr & Tagg, 1995). Leamer-centered instruction is characterized by several attributes
that change the focus from: teaching to learning, passive participation to active
involvement; single representation and perspectives to multiple representations and
perspectives, and decontextualized to contextualized learning content (J onassen, 1997;
Merriam & Cafferella, 1999).

Many adult and higher educators, therefore, embrace the need for social-

constructivist learning in at least three ways. First, they promote learning that is

11

culturally (Guy, 1999), professionally, and personally relevant (contextualized), which
actively engage the learners in social learning activities such as problem-solving
(Jonassen, 1997; Merriam & Cafferella, 1999). Second, educators (Cunningham, 1988;
Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988; hooks, 1994; Lindemann, 1921) promote educational efforts,
which also serve to empower and liberate learners. Accordingly, learning must concern
itself with social learning conditions that enable learners to challenge and overthrow
current societal structures through discussion, reflection, and then action (Freire, 1970).

Third, researchers (Dirkx & Deems, 1994; Smith & Berg, 1987; Tennant, 1997)
advocate collaborative learning that promotes individual identity change and
development. These changes reflect the ways learners make sense of and negotiate the
intrapsychic and interpersonal experiences they encounter in these active and
contextualized environments. Tennant (1997) explains that traditional thinking about
learning emphasizes an ethic of individualism. On the other hand, learners can both make
sense of and reshape their thinking in learner-centered environments that emphasize
active participation in learning within social contexts with diverse perspectives. In other
words, collaborative group learning provides critical experiences to help foster cognitive,
political, and affective instructional ends.

While this shift in thinking to reflect more active, contextual, and constructivist
forms of learning presents significant challenges for face-to-face teaching, its use and
implementation in online learning environments is less explored and understood. Yet,
online learning in adult and higher education is rapidly expanding. Learner enrollment in
online courses was expected to triple fiom five percent in 1998 to fifteen percent in 2002

(Distance Learning May Soar, 1999 as cited by West, 1999). To this end, eighty-five

12

percent of higher education institutions were expected to offer online distance courses in
2002 (Distance Learning May Soar, 1999 as cited by West, 1999).

The central argument in this chapter is that there is an ongoing effort to shift
educational thinking to embrace social constructivist (V ygosky, 1978) approaches to
teaching and learning. Online educators (Curtis & Lawson, 2001; Dede, 1996; Harasim,
Starr, Teles, & Turoff, 1995; Hiltz, 1998; McKnight, 2000; Saunders, 1998) promote
active collaborative learning for the rapidly growing online distance education course
offerings. The communication and technological limitations learners faced, however,
exacerbated the challenges of online collaborative learning (Bernard et. al., 2000; Bullen,
1998)

Moreover, little empirical evidence exists to provide a deep understanding of
collaborative online learning. Educators base their recommendations on theoretical and
speculative assumptions about the value of collaboration for online learners (Bernard et.
al., 2000; Bullen, 1998; Eastmond, 1994). Cognitive, technological, and communication
limitations dominate the literature on collaborative approaches. This literature minimizes
the ways in which the intrapsychic and interpersonal dynamics shapes learners’
perceptions of the meaning and significance of what they learn. In addition, these studies
often overlook the tensions between the group and the individual (Bennis & Shepard,
1956) and the unique psychodynamic relationships between the learner and the computer
(Reeves & Nash, 1996). These important group dynamic and developmental issues may
exaggerate the challenges in online environments due to the concomitant logistical and

technical challenges that also exist online (Bernard et. al., 2000; Bullen, 1998).

13

To guide the development of a deeper understanding of these issues, this research
relies on several conceptual ideas: a) collaborative learning (Brufee, 1999), b) individual
and group development and growth (Dirkx & Deems, 1994; Smith & Berg, 1987), c)
group dynamics (Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Smith & Berg, 1987), and d) the human-
computer interaction (Reeves & Nass, 1996). These frameworks provide additional
insights into the issues learners may face in small online groups. For example Bennis &
Shepards’ (195 6) work explored the nature of these intrapsychic and interpersonal
relationships that shape learners’ perceptions of their learning experiences. Therefore, a
psychodynamic framework may be useful to better understand the issues learners face
with collaborative learning approaches in small online groups. A consideration of the
historical, philosophical, and instructional roots of distance learning presents helpful

information on how this problem began.

Background of Distance Learning

Online learning, the newest member of the distance education family, has
historical, philosophical, and instructional roots dating back to the nineteenth century.
Historically, distance education began with the introduction of home study or
correspondence studies in the nineteenth century. Delivered via the pony express, these
correspondence courses were handwritten and targeted learners with limited access to
formal education. While the purpose of correspondence courses (later changed to
independent study) remained intact for many years, the delivery method changed with
subsequent advances in mail delivery and communication technologies (Moore &

Kearsley, 1996). The technology advanced from railroad, to radio, to television, to audio,

14

to videotapes, and finally to satellite two-way interactive television, which enhanced the
delivery speed as well as the types of communication available for distance education.
The amount of interaction between learner and teacher increased with each technological
advance (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Yet, the courses afforded limited learner-to-learner
interaction possibilities.

It was‘ assumed that learners who were geographically separated fi'om their
instructors and classmates were autonomous learners with the capacity to make
connections and applications to their specific contexts or problem situations (Moore &
Kearsley, 1996). According to Moore and Kearsley (1996), the notion of the
autonomous learner laid the philosophical foundation of the self-directed distance learner.

The main problem for instructors, however, was to find ways to optimally assist
self-directed learners so that none of them would slip through the cracks (Moore &
Kearsley, 1996). Accordingly, instruction was designed with goals that contained
specific behaviors that could be delivered in a highly structured presentation. The
separation between the teacher and the learner and the absence of group learning were
key elements for distance education (Keegan, 1986). As online learning emerged, the
historical, philosophical, and instructional approaches related to the self-directed learner
(e.g., limited interaction with the instructor and fellow learners) continued (Boshier et al.,
1997; Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Wedemeyer, 1982). Such approaches to online learning,
however, left adult learners feeling isolated (Bullen, 1998), unmotivated (Garland, 1993),
and contributed to procrastination and eventually learner attrition (Bernard et al., 2000;

Bullen, 1998; Garland, 1993).

15

Advances in computer-mediated communication technologies such as the Internet
revolutionized communication and possibilities for online group work (Baltes et al.,
2002). These possibilities included both ongoing and flexible discussions via
asynchronous (discussion boards, e-mail, and listservs) as well as synchronous (chat
rooms and video conferencing) communication. Learners could therefore, communicate
with both their instructors and other learners anytime and anywhere. These changes
opened possibilities for group work through learner-to-learner interaction, and afforded
increased opportunities for collaborative learning. A consideration of collaboration, as a
process, presents helpful information on the issues involved in collaborative learning

online within small groups.

Collaborative Learning

The paradigm shift to social constructivism reflects the rapid growth of
instructional methods whereby learners work together on common learning tasks. The
broad umbrella of group work (both cooperative and collaborative learning) captures
these methods. Cooperative learning (Cohen, 1986; Johnson & Johnson, 1978; Sharan,
Hertz-Lazarowitc, & Ackerrnan, 1980; Slavin, 1983; Slavin, 1989) closely resembles
collaborative learning (Abercrombie, 1960; Bruffee, 1999; Crook, 1994; Flannery, 1994;
Gerlach, 1994). They both share a social constructivist (V ygotsky, 1978) orientation to
assumptions about knowledge and what it means to know. They both assume that
knowledge is co-constructed in a social context among peers through shared experiences
and understandings. There are, however, key differences between the two types of

learning.

16

Cooperative learning is a process through which small interdependent learner-
groups co-construct knowledge (V ygotsky, 1978) and learn social skills. This type of
learning holds learners accountable for their individual efforts within the group (Allen &
Plax, 1999; Bruffee, 1999). The emphasis, therefore, is on holding learners accountable
for their cooperative rather than competitive efforts (Allen & Plax, 1999; Bruffee, 1999;
Slavin, 1989; Slavin, 1990). Often, the process involves activities such as the popular
jigsaw whereby the teacher divides the labor among the group members. The learners
assist one another in solving structured problems (J onassen, 1997) by mastering the
appropriate body of knowledge that is designed and predetermined by the teacher
(Flannery, 1994).

Collaborative learning, in comparison, is a process by which small,
interdependent learners co-construct knowledge (V ygotsky, 1978) to achieve consensus
and shared classroom authority (Bruffee, 1999). The emphasis is on knowledge
construction through active learner discussions, as well as a shift of much of the
classroom authority and control fiom the teacher to the small learner groups. During the
collaborative process, the learners confi'ont complex real-life situations through messy ill-
structured problems (J onassen, 1997) in which both the problem and the solution are
ambiguous. Newcomb (1962) maintains that the consensus building process places
knowledge construction within the small groups, among peers, rather than between
learners and text or teacher and learner.

Many consider cooperative and collaborative learning as two sides of the same
coin (Bruffee, 1999). Relying heavily on the work of Bruffee, collaborative learning is

distinguished from cooperative learning, in this study, based on differences in both the

17

learning goals and tasks. Cooperative learning emphasizes social skill attainment and
individual accountability (Alan & Plax, Bruffee, 1999; Slavin, 1989, 1990). Collaborative
learning, however, emphasizes both consensus building and a shift in classroom authority
(Abercrombie, 1960; Bruffee, 1999; Crook, 1994; Flannery, 1994; Gerlach, 1994).

Nevertheless, Bruffee (1999) warns that collaborative learning is more than a set
of pedagogical skills, but rather reflects epistemological beliefs (Schommer, 1994); that
is, a belief system about the nature of knowledge and learning. Pratt and Associates
(1998) contend, “The way a person teaches (actions), what a person is trying to
accomplish (intentions), and statements of why those actions and intentions are
reasonable, important, or justifiable (beliefs)” (p.7) reflect one’s epistemological beliefs.
In Bruffee’s words, a change to learner-centered instruction, therefore, requires online
efforts that reflect a change fi'om foundational educational models to non-foundational
models.

Bruffee outlines two ways of thinking about teaching and learning: foundational
and non-foundational. The foundational model reflects transmission beliefs; that is, the
instructor as transmitter of knowledge and primary classroom authority. The non-
foundational model represents the learner-centered beliefs; that is, shared and active
construction of knowledge and classroom authority. In both models, the instructor shares
their vital knowledge about content, skills, and instruction with their learners. In the non-
foundational model, however, the collaborative instructor values and builds upon the
knowledge, personal experiences, language, strategies, and cultures that learners bring to

the learning situation. The instructor models the collaborative learning process by

18

allowing the learners’ knowledge to both challenge and reshape their own thinking
(Baxter-Magolda, 1999; Bruffee, 1999; Shor, 1992).

The small groups provide the social space for learners to challenge and reshape
each others thinking through meaningful connections with the content, based on past and
present experiences (Bruffee, 1999; Shor, 1992). Instructors willingly relinquish most of
their classroom authority in order to entrust and empower the learners to take control of
their own learning. Learners must trust one another with their learning as well as accept
responsibility for the learning of their group members (Baxter- Magolda, 1999; Bruffee,
1999; Dirkx, forthcoming). Changes to collaborative processes, therefore, require both
instructors and learners to shift their beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning
(Baxter-Magolda, 1999; Bruffee, 1999; Shor, 1992).

When instructors have not examined their own foundational orientations toward
knowledge, their efforts to use group collaborative group methods continue to reflect
their foundational orientations (Bruffee, 1999; Clarebout & Elsen, 2001). For example,
Kitchen & McDougall (1999) conducted research into learners’ experiences with online
small group learning. It appears that the instructor’s foundational beliefs influenced the
types of problems designed for the curriculum. In this particular course, group members
with advanced web design skills did most of the work, while other group members
expressed dissatisfaction because they were unable to learn web design. Kitchen &
McDougall (1999) concluded that learners felt “collaborative interaction gave way to a
more cooperative approach; that of individual task specialization” That is, rather than
work collaboratively, the group members depended upon one person to do the bulk of the

work. Therefore, Kitchen & McDougall concluded, “Students did not have an

19

opportunity to develop new skills and knowledge in areas they were previously lacking”
(Kitchen & McDougall, 1999, p. 254-5). When the problems rely on subject expertise of
one or a few members, other group members are neither able to learn collaboratively nor
derive the benefits that the theory promises.

Flannery (1994) explains that failed collaborative efforts are sometimes due to the
use of well-structured problems, which reflect foundational thinking and reinforce
standard conceptions of instructor authority. Well-structured problems build upon the
principle that classroom knowledge is something that learners acquire rather than create.
In this way, the instruction is designed to allow learners to learn predefined and identified
pieces of information, rather than reflecting the intended social constructivist model.
From a consensus collaborative learning perspective (Bruffee, 1999), the instructor in
Kitchen and McDougall’s (1999) study may have attempted to implement non-
foundational approaches to learning in the collaborative groups. The effort failed
because the teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning as reflected in
the well-structured problems suggests unexarnined foundational beliefs.

Likewise changes in learners’ epistemological beliefs to reflect non-foundational
thinking requires a shift to learner-centered instruction. Bruffee (1999) and Bostworth
(1994) contend that learners approach the learning environment with years of
socialization toward education as competitive and individualistic. When learners are
continually exposed to contexts in which they make deep connections (Shor, 1992) to the
content, they develop more non-foundational beliefs about teaching and learning

(Bruffee, 1999).

20

A consideration of some of the essential elements of collaborative learning and
the learners’ response to this pedagogical approach helps to illuminate the issues which
serve to exacerbate the challenges learners face in online collaborative small groups. The

next section provides an overview of these essential elements.

Essential Elements Of Collaborative Learning

Working collaboratively in small groups to reach consensus on ill—structured
problems a) distributes the cognitive load, b) increases the zone of proximal development
and c) allows learners to both consider other perspectives as well as refiarne their own
beliefs.

When the small student groups work on ill-structured problems, the cognitive load
is distributed equitability among the members within the group. Cognitive load is the
mental energy required to process a given amount of information (Salomon, 1993). Since
both the issues embedded in the problem and the solutions to the problem are ambiguous,
the group must engage the collaborative problem-solving process. Pea (1993) and
Salomon (1993) explain that all members must participate by using past experience as
well as research for new information to enable the group to identify and resolve the issues
through considerable discussion. Faidley, Evensen, Salisbury-Glennon, Glenn, and
Hmelo (2000), contend that individual group members, therefore, benefit from the
groups’ distributed knowledge (Faidley et al., 2000).

Both the heterogeneous group composition and the consensus decision-making
are valuable group characteristics. As an individual learner, our individual zones of

proximal development (V ygotsky, 1978) may be fairly limited. However, groups that are

21

heterogeneous include an array of diverse experiences, expertise, and social cultural
backgrounds, which broadens the collective zone. The zones of individual members
overlap, creating a distance between what the group-as-a-whole already knows and what
its members can only learn in collaboration.

Nonetheless, bringing these different points of view together, into a consensus or
synthesis of knowledge, involves considerable group discussion. Group discussions
should encourage individuals to coordinate different points of view, which in turn
enhances reasoning and higher order thinking skills that promote shared knowledge
construction (McKnight, 2000). Consensus is critical to the process (Crook, 1994; Straus
& McGrath, 1994) because it is only through consensus that the members of the group
must listen, hear, understand, and finally accept the viewpoint of fellow group members.
When students merely brainstorm or discuss well-structured problems, they can easily
dismiss other points of view or allow one person to provide the solution (Straus &
McGrath, 1994).

Consensus collaborative discussions should result in members talking each other
out of or reframing their previously unshared beliefs and attitudes as they discover that
some of their beliefs and opinions are socially indefensible (Bruffee, 1999; Crook, 1994).

Theories that undergird collaborative learning suggest that when learners engage
in consensus collaborative small group learning they derive critical cognitive, affective,
and political skills needed to live in a global society. These learning strategies appear
ideal to both enable a shift to non-foundational models as well as address previous
attrition problems associated with early online efforts. Yet, research shows that learners

in online courses, which utilize small groups, fail to attain problem-solving skills (Oliver

22

& Omari, 2001) and face increasing frustration (Bullen, 1998). F urtherrnore, the
challenges learners face with these approaches to online learning may reinforce the
learners’ foundational beliefs, rather than shift their thinking toward non-foundational
beliefs (Clarebout & Elsen, 2001).

There are several attempts to account for these problems: a) the nature of the
learning environment, b) difficulty working across difference, and c) learner’s
foundational beliefs. The text-based online environment makes it significantly more
difficult to achieve consensus (Straus & McGrath, 1994). According to Strauss and
McGrath, the communication time increased when learners used written rather than
verbal skills to interact with one another. Learners were required to type their own
messages in a clear and coherent manner and use comprehensive reading skills to
understand the messages from their group members. Communicating in this way
increases the time necessary to reach consensus (Straus & McGrath, 1994) because it
increases the time required to make decisions (Bernard et al., 2000; Bullen, 1998;
McConnell, 2000; McGrath & Berdahl, 1998; Straus & McGrath, 1994; Weisband, 1992)
as well as understand the different perspectives.

Moreover, the online environment provides greater ease for social loafing (Fisher,
Phelps, & Ellis, 2000). Social loafers or group parasites are members of the group who
contribute little to the group effort, but reap the benefits (grades etc.) of fellow member
efforts. Missing non-verbal cues such as an empty chair of an absent member, or stares
fiom group members designed to elicit comments are missing, which provide easy social

loafing (Fisher, Phelps, & Ellis, 2000) opportunities. According to Fisher, et al. learners

23

can lurk (observe without commenting) unnoticed; therefore, they benefit from the
discussion through the archived records as they silently remain in the chat room.

Some researchers (Eastmond, 1994; Ragoonaden & Bordeleau, 2000) contended
learners experienced difficulty working across language and learning style differences,
which contributed to, failed consensus in small online group collaborative learning. For
example, in a study conducted by Ragoonaden & Bordeleau (2000) a French-speaking
learner refused to work with a non-French speaking peer because it was too difficult.
Furthermore, these authors contended that learners who considered themselves
autonomous learners felt that they were highly motivated and preferred to work alone so
that they could do the work the “right way.” They resented the inconvenience of working
with learners whose study habits and needs differed from their own (Ragoonaden &
Bordeleau, 2000).

Other researchers (Bruffee, 1999; Clarebout & Elsen, 2001; Eastrnond, 1994;
Flannery, 1994; Gerlach, 1994; Jonassen, 2000), however, assert learners must make a
radical shift in their beliefs about learning, problem-solving, and classroom behavior. In
other words, the ability to work collaboratively requires a shift from foundational to non-
foundational beliefs.

Researchers such as Bosworth (1994), Bruffee (1999), Eastrnond (1994), and
J onassen (2000) explain that learners are socialized into a traditional classroom setting
characterized by a) competition, b) a narrow focus on ones’ own work, c) destructive
criticism of their competitors (other learners), d) a willingness to share ideas only with
the authority figure (the teacher), and e) a general lack of trust toward peers. This

socialization process also contributes to the maintenance of social cultural inequities

24

around race, gender, and age, etc. within the educational setting (Cunningham, 1998;
Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988; hooks, 1994) that disadvantage learners with these
characteristics. Educators (McConnell, 2000; Straus & McGrath, 1994; Weisband et al.,
1995) maintain that social cultural issues such as gender and educational background
continue to influence online group discussions. For example, males (McConnell, 2000;
Straus & McGrath, 1994), students with higher academic status (Weisband et. al., 1995),
as well as learners who speak the native language tend to (Ragoonaden & Bordeleau,
2000) dominate the discussion.

Online educators (Gunawardena, 1998; Harasim, 1990; McConnell, 2000) urge
instructional designers to incorporate collaborative learning in the online environment.
Other researchers (Eastrnond, 1994) suggest that instructors provide learners instruction
on appropriate collaborative learning skills. Clarebout & Elsen (2001) designed a
collaborative learning course based on ill—structured problems and provided instruction to
learners on appropriate collaborative learning skills. However, the learners remained
steadfast in their foundational beliefs due to the technology and communication
limitations.

Collaborative learning promises are based on pragmatism (F lannery, 1994) rather
than empirical research (Bernard el. al, 2000; Bullen, 1998; Eastmond, 1994). While the
online environment seems ideal for collaborative learning with its advanced
communication technology, the online limitations may worsen the collaborative small
group learning challenges (Bernard et al., 2000; Bullen, 1998). Numerous studies
document the communication and technological challenges that learners face with online

collaborative approaches. Surprisingly, little research focuses on the affective issues that

25

arise from the paradoxical tensions of group formation and group life (Smith & Berg,
1987) or the human-computer interaction (Reeves & Nash, 1996). Collaborative learning
evokes psychodynamic issues, which the current literature fails to adequately address.
Effective collaborative learning requires considerable interpersonal interaction, to
consider the other’s point of view, and work toward intersubj ective agreement. All of
these tasks rely on a well-developed and differentiated sense of self-other relations (Dirkx
& Deems, 1994), fostered through group development and individuation. The next

section considers these issues.

Group Development and Group Dynamics

The paradoxical tensions inherent during group life revolve around the press for
individual and group identity, and unconscious issues around authority and intimacy.
Little research, however, focuses on these issues in the online environment. For this
reason, this section draws largely on the face-to-face literature to clarify the challenges.

As living unique entities, small groups grow and develop much like individuals
(Wheelan, 1994). As they create their own guidelines, rules, and goals, groups move
through progressive recurring cycles of interdependent behavior. Group dynamics
theorists (Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Bion, 1961; Smith & Berg, 1987) maintain that the
central issue for groups and individuals within the group is to nurture processes of
individuation (personal identity within the group). Group membership generates
unconscious tension around conflicting fears of de—individualization (obliterated into the
group), or of estrangement from the group. As Unger, (1984) explains, all humans need

one another’s’ support, company, recognition, and cooperation. Individuals crave the

26

possibility for self-expression that they gain in association with one another. Yet, when
they require the company of others, humans submit to the threat of suppression,
conformity, and constraint. Individuals fear that their lack of control may lead to
dependence, which may submerge their individual identity under group identity and
social roles. This tension is extremely emotionally laden and usually unconscious,
therefore individuals tend to hold back or withdraw to eliminate the tension.

The group manages the fears that members bring through conflict exploration
(Smith & Berg, 1987). According to theorists such as Smith and Berg, while the
individual member is trying to avoid the tension, the group is pressuring the individual to
give in to the conflict so that the group can manage their fears and move on to productive
work. Moreover, Smith and Berg contend that when members explore the underlying
fears that cause the tension, opportunities for both individuation and group membership
remain possible.

Smith & Berg explain that groups are caught up in a set of cyclical emotional
paradoxes. For example, during the early stages of group development, the group
experiences the paradox of belonging. The individual group members ask whether this is
a “good group” for me (my individuality is minimally compromised). The group asks
whether it has “good members” (people willing to put the group ahead of themselves).
The group then pressures the individual members to make deeper commitment levels,
which they are not only reluctant to do but in fact withdraw to avoid such commitments.
The result of this push and pull struggle creates powerful emotional tensions between the

individual and the group. The tension continues and in fact can become worse. The

27

more individuals try to assert their individuality, or the group endeavors to assert its
groupness, the more emotional tension within the group increases.

Yet, researchers (Dirkx & Deems, 1994) contend working through these tensions
is significantly mediated and constrained by self-other relationships. The individual
(self) brings to educational experiences their personal life histories, schemata, etc., which
they use to organize and make sense of the situation. Since this meaning making takes
place within the collaborative group, it reflects a dynamic interdependence of the self
with others within this social context. When learners participate in social learning
situations they use their personal life histories and schemata to structure meaning from
the situation.

Dirkx & Deems (1994) firrther argue that the interactions with certain group
members may unconsciously represent relationships with certain members of ones’ past
such as a nuclear farmly member. The group member will use past schemata and personal
life histories to perceive and interpret present relationships with group members. If the
situation repeats past interactions, the person knows what to do. If, however, the
situation does not play out in the ways one expects it to, the situation evokes considerable
affect, emotional stress and anxiety that the group must address. Dirkx and Deems argue
that individuals with dependent personalities, as well as those with a strong need to avoid
new situations, may have ill-developed and ill-differentiated self-other relationships that
cause them to respond to this novel situation with various ego defenses such as
withdrawal, denial etc.

Group membership creates opportunities for individuals to confront, differentiate,

and work on self-other relationships, (Dirkx & Deems, 1994; Smith & Berg, 1987).

28

These authors maintain that when group members both recognize and discuss their
emotional fears such as lack of trust in the team, and focus on these issues, they can co-
construct personal realities of their group experience that are less emotionally-laden. In
other words, by working through their fears, members of the group must seek to connect
more deeply with other group members to achieve a more developed sense of
individuation.

These tensions create a fundamental sense of ambivalence and ambiguity in
learners around authority and intimacy, two fundamental issues in learning groups.
Bennis & Shepard (1956) explain that groups progress through the two basic phases of
dependence and interdependence. This progression occurs first by the resolution of their
relationship to the group leader/teacher (authority) and second, their relationship to each
other (intimacy). In dependence, the first stage, the group initially seeks to obtain
direction from the leader (teacher) to save them from the tensions and ambivalence they
feel about either becoming obliterated into the group or becoming estranged. In
consensus collaborative groups, however, the teacher has voluntarily de-authorized him-
or herself and, thus, is not available to provide traditional classroom direction. When the
teacher refuses to save the individual members from the group, they rebel by first
withdrawing from both the leader and the group and then, by expressing their
disenchantment with the leader.

According to Bennis & Shepard (1956), the development of the group’s internal
authority system characterizes much of the second phase of interdependence. As the
group rebels against the leader, they enhance group cohesion but they also create pressure

for group conformity (Bennis & Shepard, 1956). Pressure for group conformity brings

29

into stark reality the ambivalent feelings of either being engulfed or isolated (Smith &
Berg, 1987). Group members experience this pressure as emotional tension and retreat or
withdraw because they do not want to live with this tension. Withdrawal may increase
individual learner satisfaction, but it may also limit group production (Miller, Trimbur, &
Wilkes, 1994) because the attention focuses unevenly on the groups’ tensions, which
leaves little time for the task.

A couple of studies note group dynamics issues that learners face collaborating in
small online groups. The groups take longer to advance past the initial identity formation
stage (Bouas & Arrow, 1996). Yet, online groups encounter the same interpersonal issues
as face—to-face groups especially around intimacy (McDonald & Gibson, 1998). The
technology, however, inhibits ones ability to self-disclose and creates different dilemmas
for group cohesion (Fisher et al., 2000) and individuation possibilities.

These studies provide scant information on the critical psychodynanric
issues evoked in group development and the ways in which learners negotiate the
issues they face with collaborative small online groups. For example, although
McDonald and Gibson (1998) examined interpersonal pattern issues around
intimacy (inclusion, control, and affection), their study had three key lirrritations.

First, the groups were composed of all female members. Second, the instructors
were included as group members in each of the three teams. Finally, the study did
not examine psychodynamic issues. Therefore, it does little to help understand
the issues in small learner heterogeneous groups. The current literature on small

online collaborative groups also provides scant attention to the human-computer

30

interaction, which may influence the psychodynamic group dynamic issues. The

next section examines this issue.

The Human-Computer Interaction

In the preliminary analysis of this study, India, one of the online group
learners exclaimed: “I wanted to put my foot through the computer.” She was
elaborating on her frustration with fellow group members’ failure to post
messages in a timely manner. This anecdote reveals an additional important issue
in online collaborative learning - the human-computer interaction. Yet, this area
has received little consideration in studies of online learning groups. Reeves and
Nass (1996) contend that people unconsciously assign responsibility for messages
and the feelings associated with those messages to the most proximate source
such as the computer rather than the originating source. In their words, India may
be attributing feelings about the group to the computer. India’s statement
suggests her relationship with the computer evokes psychodynamic feelings that
are usually attributed to the group. Reeves and Nass (1996) argue that people do
not make unconscious distinctions between real and the mediated. They take
what the media presents as the real thing. Co-located groups form the context for
most studies that examine the underlying psychodynarnics of small groups. A
literature gap, therefore, exists that focuses on the ways in which the computer as
the medium for communication may influence the psychodynamic issues in small

online collaborative groups.

31

Summary

In summary, collaborative learning involves learners being able to bring their own
fears to the group. As group members they must be willing to allow these issues to
change and redefine their individual identity as they work with their cohort on both the
subject-matter as well as broader group fears. Learners must also attend to the concerns
and worldviews of others, to enter more fully into the lives of their fellow group
members, to actively listen, be listened to, and reach consensus. Yet, when learners enter
more fully into the lives of fellow group members, they risk being engulfed or estranged
from one another because of the inherently psychodynamic small group work. The
groups’ capacity to effectively work through these fears is therefore complicated by these
important group dynamics and developmental issues. The group member’s fears are
important to the learner’s sense of identity within the group and the tensions that exist
between the individual and the group.

These important group dynarrric and developmental issues may be exacerbated in
the online environment due to the concomitant logistical and technical challenges (Fisher
et al., 2000; Lebie, Rhoades, & McGrath, 1996). The limited nonverbal communication
cues, and communication spontaneity, served to increase the time needed to progress
through the early stages of development (Bouas & Arrow, 1996), and may have added to
participants’ ambivalence and uncertainty about its value for learning (Ragoonaden &
Bordeleau, 2000).

While the current research efforts on collaborative learning provide an
understanding of some problematic areas in the online environment, they provide little

assistance to elucidate tensions between the individual and the group. Wheelan (1994)

32

contend that research investigations that focus on both the group and the individual, as
units of analysis are necessary to more firlly understand human experience. Relatively
little is known, however, about how learners negotiate this tension of the individual and
the group, how they work through the problems of authority and intimacy, nor how they
negotiate other issues that they face in this new and rapidly growing online learning
context. Understanding the learners’ experiences in these groups will enable adult and
higher education instructors to more fully understand and attend to the issues students
face as they work with collaborative online small group pedagogical approaches.

The purpose of this research was to develop an understanding of learners’
perceptions of their experiences with collaborative learning approaches that utilize small
online groups, as well as the issues learners faced, and the ways in which learners
negotiated those issues in an online context. Specifically, this research sought to answer
the following questions:

1. How do learners enrolled in a collaborative learning course describe their

experiences?

2. What do learners perceive to be issues important to their experience of

collaborative learning?

3. What coping strategies do learners employ to address the issues they described

while they worked in these collaborative online groups?

4. How do learners describe the consequences of the coping strategies?

33

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this research was to develop an understanding of learners’
perceptions of their experiences with collaborative learning approaches that utilize small
online groups, as well as the issues learners faced, and the ways in which learners
negotiated those issues in an online context. Specifically, this research sought to answer
the following questions:

1. How do learners enrolled in a collaborative learning course describe their

experiences?

2. What do learners perceive to be issues important to their experience of

collaborative learning?

3. What coping strategies do learners employ to address the issues they described

while they worked in these collaborative online groups?

4. How do learners describe the consequences of the coping strategies?

Organization of the chapter
As I began this study, very little empirical evidence existed to inform my
understanding of learners’ perceptions of their experiences working collaboratively in
small groups in an online course. Moreover, a review of the current literature, failed to
reveal a useful protocol to gather the data needed for this study. Therefore, the first phase
of this research tested the appropriateness of the data collection procedures and analyses,
and identified preliminary themes that could guide further data collection and analysis

efforts. From this analysis, data collection procedures and protocols were judged

34

appropriate for the study. I selected participants from the first phase to conduct a more in-
depth analysis for the current study; the second phase. This chapter is divided into three
sections. The first section presents the assumptions and theoretical position. In the
second section, I present the research design for the preliminary study. The third section

presents the data collection and analysis for the current study.

Assumptions and Theoretical Position

I bring to this work a blending of a social -constructivism, learning for
development and growth, and group-as-a-whole theoretical orientations. Each
orientation seeks to interpret human action. A social constructivist (V ygotsky, 1978)
orientation provided insight into learning as meaning-making within a social setting.
Vygotsky asserted that the social context of the learning situation greatly influenced the
ways that learners co-constructed knowledge. Moreover, learners’ views of the world and
the ways in which learners make meaning of their experiences were socially constructed.

Learning for individual identity development and growth orientations reflect the
ways learners make sense of and negotiate the intrapsychic and interpersonal experiences
they encounter in active and contextualized environments. Tennant (1997) explains that
traditional thinking about learning emphasizes an ethic of individualism. Teaching from a
developmental perspective (Pratt & Associates, 1998) focuses on the social nature of
learning to both aid in personal development and growth as well as to build healthy
learners self-concepts and attitudes toward learning. The teacher focuses heavily upon the
learning rather than the teaching. Pratt and Associates contend that learners become the

central focus as the instructor shapes the learning goals and the social context to both

35

allow for mastery of the content as well as to help learners become more aware of the
Self. In other words, the goals of education become two fold: to master content as well
as to break down barriers and resistance that may prevent the person from learning.
Learning from this perspective is best accomplished by providing a context in which the
learners depend heavily upon prior knowledge to build upon and construct new
knowledge by actively engaging in the content. The social context provides opportunities
for reflection that allows learners to name and claim aspects of the Self that remain
hidden and can hinder learning.

The group-as—a-whole orientation is intended to refer to a specific phenomenon in
the life of a small group apart from the sum of individual or interpersonal contributions
(Wheelan, 1994). This orientation assumes that the group has properties and
characteristics, which are unique and not shared by the personal or the interpersonal
dimensions of the individuals. In this study, my approach to how data were collected,
gathered, analyzed, as well as how knowledge was constructed and viewed (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000) was influenced by these three theoretical approaches.

There are many different ways to examine the small group experience for learners
in online environments. Each method illuminates and obscures different elements. To
design my research, I examined the ways in which the small online collaborative group
had been studied in the past. Quantitative studies were conducted in experimental
laboratories rather than in naturalistic settings. For example, issues of two journals,
Small Group Research (V 01. 21, No. 3) and Computer Supported Cooperative Work (V 01.
4, No. 2 & 3) devoted entire issues to small groups with computers and in online

contexts. These issues presented research based on two longitudinal quantitative studies.

36

The authors looked at group development, gender issues, and the influence of member
changes in groups, however, they did not examine the group-as-a-whole. In addition,
most of the studies did not examine the group within a naturalistic setting such as an
actual course.

I examined qualitative studies on students’ perceptions of their online small group
experiences (e. g. Clarebout & Chen, 2001; Kitchen & McDougall, 1999; McConnell,
2000; 20002; Sage, 2000; Oliver & Omari, 2001). Even though these authors examined
the small group within a naturalistic setting, they did not examine the group-as-a-whole. I
also examined the face-to-face literature on small groups that utilized a group-as-a-whole
perspective. These studies utilized a single group focus through observation and analysis
of transcripts of conversations, and provided one approach to examining the small group.
For example, Bennis and Shepard (1956) examined groups throughout different phases of
development.

Several group development models were used to conceptualize the small group as
the group-as-a-whole. These included basic group development (Bennis & Shepard,
1956), basic assumptions theory (Bion, 1961), the matrix model (Boyd, 1983; 1984;
1991), the individuation/fusion process (Gibbard, 1974), and paradoxes of small group
life (Smith & Berg, 1987). Each of these studies highlighted the influence of the small
group and the individual as well as the individual on the small group. These influences
are largely unconscious and reflect a struggle for identity. Individuals come into the
group with a contradictory fear of either being obliterated into the group or rejected from
the group. This fear creates ambivalent feelings about the group and desires to withdraw

from the group. Withdrawal from the group creates feelings of isolation (Smith & Berg,

37

1987), and thus the members are stuck in a back and forth cycle (Gibbard, 1974). It is
unknown in what ways, if any, these processes are influenced by an online context.

This study is grounded in case study and heuristic inquiry (Moustakas, 1994).
Applying a heuristic approach recognizes and builds upon the direct connection between
the researcher and the research. My interests in this study were based on prior
experiences as both a learner in face-to-face groups and as a teacher in both online and
face-to-face contexts. As a member of the team who designed the particular course under
study and as the Graduate Assistant for the course, I had an integral role in the design,
implementation, and continuous evaluation of the course. As the Graduate Assistant, my
involvement was primarily limited to technical assistance for learners. Since, I was going
to conduct the learner interviews, I consciously participated as an observer in the chat
rooms and discussion boards so that the learners would not view me as a course
instructor. The learners were told that I was a participant observer. I often helped them
with technical problems. I am therefore acknowledging these connections with both the

study and the participants, rather than trying to keep the research separate from them.

Research Design For the Preliminary Study
The study utilized a qualitative design with a heuristic cross case study approach.
A cross case study allows the researcher to explore several entities or phenomenon which
are bound by time and activity, and assumes that there are some generalities that can be
drawn from the individual cases (Merriam, 1998). A cross case approach was employed
because the study of the human phenomenon, “collaborative experiences with small

groups in an online context,” requires a research methodology that enables the researcher

38

to explore the phenomena as separate cases. The small groups are separate entities,
which were bound by both time and activity. The small groups began during the third
week of the semester and dissolved (the members were no long required to work as a
group) a week before the course ended. The groups were created to work on the
educational problems.

In this study, I sought to understand the issues the learners faced and how they
negotiated those issues. I accomplished this understanding by exploring their experiences
as a group. A description of the individual members within the group provided a way to
understand their experiences as a unit, the group-as-a-whole, as well as their individual
experiences. Moreover, viewing the group-as-a-whole allowed an understanding of the
issues they faced and the ways they negotiated those issues together. Finally, the cross

case study allowed an examination of the commonalities and differences of the groups.

Context and Setting

 

The basis of this study was a sixteen-week online course in Adult Learning that
was taught in the fall of 2001. It was offered as part of the core requirements for the
newly created college-wide online Master’s program in Education. It was also a core
course for the Higher and Adult Education Master’s program within the Administrative
Education Department in the College of Education at Pervis State University. These
programs are located within a Carnegie Classified Research Extensive University in the
Midwest. This course was selected because of the following reasons: a) the use of
extensive small groups and ill-structured problems, b) the lack of a face-to-face meeting

requirement, c) the use of both asynchronous and synchronous communication, and d) the

39

instructor’s extensive experience with small groups in both classroom and professional
settings.

The course used a problem-based learning approach (Barrows, 1994). Problem-
Based Learning (PBL) is the process of learning through ill-structured (J onassen, 1999)
problem resolution (Barrows, 1994; Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). Chapter four presents a
more detailed description of the study context including the PBL approach, the course
website, and the course assignments.

The instructor of the course had taught adult learning for seventeen years;
however, this was his first experience with both online learning and a PBL approach.
Nevertheless, the instructor had used case based and project based instruction in many of
his classrooms. As a former instructional designer, the instructor was very familiar with
design principles. In addition to teaching adult learning, the instructor also taught small
group development, collaborative learning, as well as having served as a consultant to

companies regarding their small group issues.

Selection of participants

 

An e-mail message (Appendix A) was sent inviting the 26 class members to
participate in the study. These twenty-six members represented eight small groups. The e-
mail message described the general nature of the study, the interview techniques used,
administrative contact information, and the option to select three different levels of
participation. The participation levels included; full participation (interview, an

examination of their course assignments, and the archived records), partial participation

40

(an examination of the course archived records and assignments, but no interview), or the
learners could decline to participate.

Twenty-four of the twenty-six learners in the course agreed to fully participate in
the study. One learner declined participation. One learner declined an interview. Two of
the twenty-four learners failed to keep their interview appointments.

Most of the data were collected during the semester; therefore, the learners were
assured that the instructor would not have access to the interviews and background
information until after the class grades were posted. To protect learner confidentiality, the
learners were asked to choose a false name, which was used to identify them during data
collection and analysis. Additionally, the instructor was not involved in the interview
process so that learners could freely discuss their experiences. The instructor had access
to the archived chat room and discussion records, as well as the learner debriefing papers
throughout the course. The respondents who chose to fully participate scheduled a face-
to-face or a telephone interview and completed the background questionnaire (Appendix

B). Chapter four presents the participant demographics.

Data Sources

 

The cross case inquiry allowed for the collection of detailed information by using
a variety of data collection procedures during a sustained period of time (Merriam, 1988;
Yin, 1989). To reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation, a triangulation approach
(Flick, 1998) to the data collection was employed. The data collection sources included a
background questionnaire, learner interviews, instructor interviews, debriefing papers,

reflective journals, and the archived transcripts. These multiple sources of information

41

were consistent with those recommended in cross case inquiry approaches (Merriam,
1988; Yin, 1989).

Background Questionnaires: A questionnaire (Appendix B) was administered to
obtain important background information. The questionnaire contained two parts: (a)
general information about the participants' gender, age, educational qualifications, and
their academic interests, and (b) participants’ prior experience with computers, their
comfort level, and their familiarity with various software packages. At the time of the
interview, the learners were asked to complete the questionnaire. The researcher
completed the background questionnaire by using data obtained from the participant
during telephone interviews.

Learner Interviews: The interviews were semi-structured and in-depth lasting
approximately 45 minutes to two hours. Participant interviews began two weeks before
the course was over and ended a month after the course concluded. Eighteen interviews
were conducted face-to-face and four were conducted via telephone. All but one of the
interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. One participant refused a tape-
recorded interview for cultural reasons. F ollow-up interviews were conducted as needed
and lasted 20 to 45 minuets. The major stimulus questions within the interview protocol
(Appendix C) included: tell me why you enrolled in this course; describe your previous
experiences if any working in small groups; describe your group; and describe how your
group members communicate with each another.

Instructor Interviews: Ongoing and informal interviews and conversations

occurred with the instructor throughout the semester.

42

Debriefing papers: The debriefing papers were individual efforts, which reflected
the participants’ reactions to both the problem-solving and group processes. In the
debriefing paper, the learners evaluated the problem-solving process in terms of both
their own performance as well as the groups’ (Barrows, 1988). The participants in the
study wrote debriefing papers following the first two problem-solving processes. The
instructor eliminated the requirement to write the third debriefing paper due to time
constraints. The use of debriefing papers afforded Opportunities to trace the learners’
thoughts and feelings during the first and second problem-solving sessions. The learner
debriefing papers allowed for an examination of the private thoughts of the participants,
which were at times contrary to their public expressions.

Reflective journals: All learners were required to maintain a reflective journal of
class sessions, reading experiences, and assignments. The instructor requested weekly
entries into the journal from the beginning of the course until the course ended. The
journal allowed the learners to focus on the affective, imaginative, cognitive, and
intellectual dimensions of their experiences. Where appropriate, drawings or pictures
were permitted. The use of the journals provided opportunities to trace the learners’
thoughts and feelings regarding both the course and the readings from the beginning of
the course until it ended. The learner reflective journals also revealed the private thoughts
of the participants, which both contrasted and aligned with their public statements.

Archived Discussion and Chat Room Records: Discussion boards and chat rooms
were used to facilitate public conversations among all class members (lobby discussions),
as well as private conversations among group members (group discussions). The lobby

discussions and chats formed the basis for whole class discussion. Although frequent e-

43

mails occurred between the instructor and the learners, the primary means of interaction
with the instructor was via the lobby discussion boards and the chat room. The group
discussion boards and chat rooms were used to facilitate group discussion and to provide
a space to share files and reflections on the readings as they progressed through the
problem-solving process. Each time the learners and instructor posted information to the
discussion board or participated in a discussion in a chat room, the information was
archived. A review of these records provided a rich and in-depth look at those
discussions, and these archives were used to better understand examples, points, and
issues that the participants referenced in the other data sources. The archived records
were also used to better understand early learner reactions to the course, group

communication, and group decisions.

Results of Preliminary Analysis

 

Interviews were conducted with twenty-two learners. These initial interviews
were subjected to preliminary analysis. Two critical issues emerged: a) the learners’
ambivalence to working collaboratively, and b) the integral relationship of the
participants’ group experiences with their overall experience of the online course. These
issues served to focus and guide the participant selection and data analysis for the current

study, which is described below.

Participant Selection and Data Analysis For The Current Study

The participants for the current study included ten members from three of the

eight small groups in the class. One of the key findings of the preliminary analysis

44

revealed that the group process was tightly bound (Brown, Collins, & Dugid, 1989) to the
learning experiences of the participants. An examination of three of the eight groups
allowed for a deeper analysis of the participants’ experiences within their group (social

context). Chapter four provides details concerning the groups selected for the study.

Data Analysis

 

The data analysis proceeded through a constant comparative approach. The
learner interviews served as the primary data source. They were edited to produce a
narrative of each participant by removing the researcher voice and broken sentences.
Appropriate information fi'om the questionnaires, debriefing papers, and reflective
journals was added to the interview narratives. The narratives were then subjected to
preliminary analysis. The analysis was from the “bottom up” (i.e., from their actual
actions and comments) and from the “top down” (i.e., guided by what I was looking for -
such as emotions experienced while working on a group task).

As the researcher, I suspended all assumptions until the phenomena were
carefully reflected upon and described (Maypole & Davies, 2001). The bi-directional
approach to the data allowed for an investigation of important issues, while still
maintaining the primacy of the actual data free from assumptions. The preliminary
analysis continued in an iterative process, as described above, until no additional themes
were uncovered. The individual narratives for each of the groups were compared to the
other members of the group to identity common themes among the group members in
each group. The themes from each group were then compared to the other groups to

frame the data analysis.

45

The archived records from both the lobby and group discussion boards and chat
rooms were used to clarify and to better understand examples, points and issues that the
participants raised in other data sources. NVivo, a qualitative software package, was used
during data analysis. Whenever possible and appropriate, learners were contacted via
telephone to further clarify or elaborate on aspects of the questionnaires, interviews,

debriefing papers, reflective journals, and archived records.

Presentation of the Findings

Since the group, as a context for learning, is an integral part of their lived
experiences, the participants’ experiences were examined within their small groups.
According to Brown et a1. (1989), both the process of learning and the knowledge
attained are “a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and
used“ (p.32). Each group therefore, served as a separate case and the context for the
individual collaborative learning experiences. In chapter four, the group members are
presented within their small groups to allow a fuller examination of both the individual
and group issues learners faced, and ways learners negotiated those experiences and

issues.

46

CHAPTER FOUR

STUDY CONTEXT AND THE SMALL GROUPS

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the findings, revealed through an
analysis of data from interviews, background questionnaires, debriefing papers, reflective
journals, and the archived transcripts from the course. The study was designed to
develop an understanding of learners’ perceptions of their experiences with collaborative
learning approaches that utilized small online groups, the issues learners faced, and the
ways in which learners negotiated those issues in an online context.

The findings for this study are divided into two chapters. This chapter provides a
brief description of the study context, the course description, the participants, and their
groups. The course description lays out the problem-based approach, the course
requirements, the courses’ web site, and the group selection process. This chapter also
presents a brief description of the three groups, which includes member descriptions and
general information regarding the group process.

Chapter five provides a cross case analysis of the three groups as separate cases.
This cross case analysis presents the issues the members encountered, the strategies they
used to cope with the issues, and the consequences of those strategies.

Traditionally taught in face-to-face contexts, the course was redesigned for an
online environment and a problem-based learning (PBL) format. The course represented
a stand-alone PBL effort; that is, the PBL approach is not an integrated curriculum within

the Master’s program Pervis. PBL is the process of learning through ill-structured

47

(J onassen, 1999) problem resolution (Barrows, 1994; Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). The
learners in the course were assigned three problems to resolve.

The instructor goals for the course design were to foster the mastery of the content
(adult learning theory), as well as to provide a context for which the learners could
acquire a deeper understanding of the Self in relation to others in the world. He relies
heavily upon constructivist learning principles (Duffy & J onassen, 1992), which stresses
active roles for learning in the creation of their knowledge and the structures in which the
knowledge is created. His orientation to learning incorporates the belief that the
intrasychic and interpersonal dynamics within the learning environment shapes
participant’s perceptions of the meaning and significance of what they learn.

These dynarrrics represent deep structures, which serve to mediate and constrain
the very nature of what is learned. Participation in social learning situations are
important because learners unconsciously use self-other relationships to structure the
meaning of their learning experiences. The self-other relationships enable individuals to
address the emotional stress and anxiety associated with previous relationships as well as
learning situations. When this anxiety surfaces within the group, and are fully addressed
by the group, the individual is able to overcome their resistance to learning by exploring
aspects of themselves in interaction with the world that prevents them from doing so. At
the same time, the learners master the content. Therefore, the learning environment
should integrate both mastery of subject content as well as provide opportunities for
personal growth and a fuller understanding of Self in learning groups. It is the
instructor’s belief that both the PBL approach within the consensus collaborative learning

groups accomplishes both as the learners work to resolve the ill-structured problems,

48

which represents real-life situations that learners are likely to face in their professional
practices. This chapter presents a more detailed course description and the small groups

used for analysis.

The Course

The learners were expected to learn the content by solving the assigned problems
rather than depending upon the traditional lecture format. The instructor created three ill-
structured problems, which closely resembled situations the learners encountered in their
professional practices. Each problem consisted of the background information, guiding
questions for the learners to consider, a deadline for the group paper, and some suggested
readings. For example, the first problem presented a set of issues that a community
college instructor faced within her developmental education class (e.g., attrition, learner
motivation, etc.) The groups’ assignment was to read the problem, identify the core issue
from their perspective, and create an action plan for the college president to address the
issue. A similar approach was used for two additional problems, which made up the
course curriculum. The recommended problem-solving process consisted of an initial
orientation phase in which the members became acquainted and established ground rules,
followed by several problem-solving phases. The learners: a) read the problem and took
on different roles such as facilitator or recorder; b) developed a temporary hypothesis and
decided areas of research needed to support the hypothesis; c) divided up the research
tasks; (1) reconvened and to share what they had learned, to reconsider their hypothesis, or
to generate a new hypothesis in light of new information (this iterative phase continued

until the members were satisfied that they had resolved their perception of the problem);

49

and f) wrote up their report. The report was a collaborative group effort reflecting their
action plan.

Finally, the learners entered an evaluation/debriefing phase in which the
members consciously reflected on the problem-solving process, the group process, as
well as the knowledge gained from the experience. After the group reflection, individual
group members produced a debriefing paper, which summarized what they learned about
adult learning and the group process. These papers were submitted to the instructor.

Individual group members also maintained personal reflective journals throughout
the course, which were sent to the instructor at the end of the semester. The capstone
activity resembled a review of the literature in which the learners responded to the
following questions: Who are adult learners? Why do they want to learn? What motivates
them to participate in learning efforts? Grades were based on both individual and group
projects.

The course website contained three main areas to exchange information: member
profiles, the class wide lobby area, and the individual group space. The course website
also included an orientation section, which contained the course syllabus, the problems,
the orientation activities, and links to other useful information such as the library. The
instructor requested that class members post a profile including a picture, if available,
their course goals, and a description of themselves as adult learners. All members posted
personal information, but many did not post pictures.

The overall course design included a two-week orientation designed to familiarize
the learners with the online environment, the other learners in the class, and to provide

background information and activities on collaborative learning, small group work, and

50

PBL. The groups were expected to meet by using any medium they chose to initiate the
problem-solving process.

In the lobby area, the members of the class participated in whole class discussions
using discussion boards (asynchronous communication) and chat rooms (synchronous
communication). During the orientation phase, the class practiced uploading files,
downloading files, and communicating via the discussion boards. The discussion boards
contained several conversation threads — areas designated for a specific topic. For
example, there were discussion threads entitled “help,” “getting acquainted,” “problem
one,” etc. The lobby chat rooms afforded real time conservations that served as a means
for the instructor to respond to class members’ questions and concerns.

The individual group areas served as designated spaces for group members to
communicate with one another. Only the group members and the instructor had access to
their personal chat space, but the whole class had access to their discussion boards. The
instructor visited the group discussion boards daily and made frequent comments
regarding their processes. He also met with groups in their chat rooms upon request and
he visited a few groups uninvited. The groups in this study primarily used discussion
boards and chat rooms to communicate. Two of the groups, however, met face-to-face
and used telephone conference calls for group meetings.

There were 26 learners in the course; one African female (Master’s); four
African American females (one Doctoral, three Master’s); one African American male
(Master’s); one International female (Master’s); one International male (Master’s); one

Hispanic female (Doctoral); one Permanent Resident female (Master’s); nine European

51

American females (four doctoral, five Master’s); eight European American males (three
Doctoral, five Master’s). Their ages ranged from 23-55 years.

The instructor assigned the learners to eight small groups of three to four students
with the intention of creating heterogeneous groups. The groups stayed intact for the
entire semester.

The Groups

The three groups selected for this study broadly represented the range of social-
cultural, expertise, and educational backgrounds found among the class members. Table 1
below provides a description of the individuals in the groups.

TablLl
Participants

ame

year-o s
-o s
year-o European earner
55 year-o European Permanent Master s

-0 East
-0
year-o Amencan
year-o European
year-o
year-o

 

India and Nickie were familiar with one another from other courses within their
program. Janis, India, Nickie, and Matthew were taking two online classes together
during the semester. Scarlett and Donald were fairly new to Higher and Adult Education
and did not know the other members of the course. The extent to which other group

members were acquainted with each other prior to the study is unknown.

52

Group One

There were three members in group. one, Janis, Sophia, and Donald. Janis was a
29-year-old African American female student in the final year of her Master’s program in
Higher and Adult Education. She enrolled in her first two online courses during this
semester. Janis was employed as a “Graduate Assistant ...at Pervis State University as
an Educational Program Coordinator.” Her future plans include “conference planning,” in
which she will need to communicate online with others.

Janis’ initial reaction to the online course was “exciting.” She did not have to
“look for parking” and it provided her an opportunity to “experience” online
communication. As Janis faced the need to work in groups, some of her initial
excitement faded, she noted:

I am really wondering how we are going to accomplish all the work

together online. I don’t know how I am going to get [the] hang of chatting

at the same time with my group. This is weird! To form my thoughts and

respond and type them will be my greatest challenge.
Overall Janis “enjoyed the course.” She stated that she “learned a lot about
communicating online. . .leamed more online than... in a [face-to-face] class.”
Furthermore, she enjoyed both “working with strangers online. . .and examining problems
from multiple perspectives.” Her challenges with the class included communicating
online, the workload, and the group process. Regarding communicating online, Janis
commented: “it’s more impersonal. . .I like to hear people. . .I felt that I could not just say
whatever I wanted to say. . .it may be interpreted in a way that I [didn’t] want it

interpreted.” Janis found that the class was “challenging” because it was the first time the

course was taught online. In fact, Janis thought the course was so rigorous that she

53

offered the following caution to learners who might consider taking the course in the
future; “If there won’t be any tweaking to it [this course], I would think there should be a
disclaimer saying don’t take any other classes [when you are enrolled in this course], I
mean just based on the demand, the high demand and the intensity.”

Janis’ experiences in previous small groups were mixed. She pointed out two
issues with working in small groups. First, “people’s arrogance. . .they have an expertise
in certain areas. . .and don’t know how to be humble.” Second, “some people may have
more of an educational background than myself. . .because I am not like them they are not
going to include me or value my opinion.” Having her voice heard in educational
settings is “very important.” Concerning the group process in this class, she remarked:
“working in groups can be a struggle.” She described her “struggle” in this group: “it
was challenging. . .it was difficult because I didn’t have the technology originally.” After
purchasing a computer she commented: “I found the communication online was still an
issue. We were not communicating effectively as a group. I felt left in the cold... non-
existent.” Janis added: “I just felt that I wanted my voice to be heard so that’s where
the struggle was and that’s my fight to get my voice hear .”

Sophia, another member of group one, was a 28-year-old European American
female in the last year of her Master’s program in Student Affairs Administration.
Sophia was a full-time Resident Director at Shawn College about 75 miles fiom Pervis.
Sophia advised, “I wondered [how this class would contribute to my overall goals]
because it was all about adult education.”

Sophia described herself as “hopeless undisciplined. . .I just tend to not like to

decide.” She explained her initial reaction to the course; “I love conversation and face-to-

54

face contact so this venue may be difficult for me to adjust to.” Sophia stated: “I think
face-to-face classes are better...it boils down to being able to talk and listen in class.” She
described how she felt working online: “there’s a little isolation. You don’t have the
sound. You just are kind of typing.”

Her previous group experiences in “work settings have been more successful than
in classroom settings.” She explained: “in work setting[s]. . .people are more like doing it
for more intrinsic reasons rather than just the grade.” In the classroom setting, Sophia
complained that after announcing to her group members that she did not care about the
grade they “interpreted that as you’re not going to carry your weight and you’re just
going to float and we’re going to have to get the grade.” However she noted, “I didn’t
mean it like that at all...I am going to try and learn, but if we don’t end up getting a good
grade, I am not going to be angry.”

Regarding her group experience in this class, she remarked: “the experience itself
was a mixed bag and there were positives and negatives.” She explained:

Sometimes I was really frustrated. It would be so much easier if I could

just do this myself. And then other times I was like this is good, I'm glad

that everyone is here and I don't have to do this all myself. It just really

depended on the day. ...I feel myself changing in group settings.

Nonetheless, Sophia related a positive outcome to this class, “I feel like the stuff I did in
this class is more a part of me or I can remember it better or something. . .I am learning a
lot about adult learning by being an adult learner.”

Donald, the third member of group one, was a 36-year-old European American

male in the first year of his Doctoral program in Higher and Adult Education. He lived

about 250 miles from campus and was “an Assistant Professor in Kinesiology at Great

55

Lakes State University.” This course represents his third doctoral course and his first
online course.

As an adult learner, Donald described himself as a “traditional learner. . .very task-
oriented, want things spelled out for me. . .want to be able to just regurgitate
information. . .[and] likes having true facts.” Donald enrolled in this course because “it
was offered and it was going to trim down some of the requirements that I needed for my
degree... and I could take it from home.”

Regarding his initial experiences in this class, Donald remarked: “I was scared,
apprehensive at the beginning of this class because I had never done it over the Internet
before.” He continued: “I’ll tell you honestly, there was a time when I actually thought
about dropping the class because basically it was the technical things. I was really, really
frustrated...” He explained: “I feel like a mental midget with the computer. . .I need to
step up to the plate and enter the realm of new technology.” After the first week online,
Donald’s frustrations subsided; “I am feeling better about the whole online thing. I got
on and read all the discussions and most people feel like I do, a bit intimidated and unsure
of what is going on. Overall Donald said, “I’m pretty happy that I took the class... I’m
learning stuff that I’m able to apply stuff in my own practice in an educational type of
setting, which is what I wanted to do.”

With regard to small groups Donald remarked; “I think that many adults are
intimidated by groups and would rather just do individual work so that they don’t have to
look stupid in front of their peers.” He described his group experience in this class,

I don’t know if I would call it granting authority or trusting, but with each

person working on their own section, we as a group entrust the others to

do their section properly with the same care and diligence that we
ourselves would do. This is difficult for me. Some in my group [Sophia]

56

I trust whole-heartedly because it seems like we think alike. Others

[Janis] seem to be out there and are thinking of superficial items and

assumptions.

The members of group one had three different roles for the three problems: the
facilitator, the recorder, and the “third person.” According to Donald, “the facilitator
needs to keep the group on task and moving in a forward direction to complete the task
on time. Maybe even coordinating meeting times and such.” The recorder summarized
the groups’ discussions, completed the first draft of the paper, and submitted the written
work to the instructor and the other groups. The duties of the “third person” were
undefined. At the beginning of each problem, they rotated roles.

According to the members of this group, they all contributed equally to the
discussions. This group never met face-to-face or spoke on the telephone. They met an
average of one hour three days per week to conduct about 90% of their discussions. In
addition, they used the discussion boards to post reactions to the problem. According to
Janis, the group sent “each other quick e-mails to say well check this, check out the
discussion board for my response. . .here's my attached document if you want to
download to your disk or whatever.” They also used the discussion board to ask the
instructor questions.

Regarding the problem-solving process, the group; a) read the problem; b) posted
their initial reactions; c) completed the readings; (1) met to brainstorm approaches to the
problems; and e) divided up the sections based on their discussions. The assignments
were made based on whether someone felt strongly about an issue. When it was time to
write the paper, they used the product specifications provided by the professor for each

problem. They divided the paper into three sections. Finally, they wrote their individual

57

sections of the paper. The members sent a draft of their section to the other members for
comments and suggestions. The recorder combined the individual sections, wrote the
first draft of the paper, and sent it out to the other members. When everyone agreed, the
recorder made the final adj ustrnents, and e-mailed it to the professor.

The members of this group accommodated everyone’s interests with regard to
the assigned research and writing tasks. Janis explained: “this is funny, as much conflict
that was going on, we really did give each other the opportunity to choose and it was
helpful because each of us had our own little expertise.”

One of the challenges for this group was that neither Janis as the “third person” in
the group nor the undefined “third person” seemed to fit well into the group. Donald and
Sophia often referred to Janis as the third group member when they were actually talking
about the role “third person.” Janis became the “third person” in the group because she
experienced computer problems for the first two weeks after the groups were formed.
She had to order a new computer because her old one would not support the chat function
required for the course. Therefore, she was unable to participate in discussions with her
group. In the meantime, Sophia and Donald met, shared personal information, and began
work on the problem. Janis joined the group during the third week. In reality, she had
missed the two weeks of group orientation, but Donald and Sophia had started discussing
the problem during the first week. Sophia explained what happened when Janis finally
resolved her computer problems.

We had already made a bunch of progress because we thought, well are

they coming or are they not. . .so we just started and that I think this kind

of got us off on a bad start with the group dynamics because that third

person [Janis] didn't really know what was going on and we didn't

necessarily do a good job of filling them in. So from that start, we had
several kind of conflicts I would say and it seemed that it ended up being

58

kind of two [Donald and Sophia] against one [Janis] a lot. ...Janis [was]

coming from a completely different perspective. Then Donald and I are

together often — the majority often wins out.

A number of their conflicts centered on Janis’ approach to the problem and as
Sophia commented: “often I feel she has not done her homework and her ideas aren’t as
valuable.” As Donald and Sophia reflected upon their role as the “third person,” for
problems two and three respectively, they began to understand part of the problem.
Donald commented, “I had a difficult time trying to fit in as the person with no assigned
title in this problem. . .I don’t think I contributed more then. . .at times I wanted to
facilitate, but pulled back so as not to interfere.” At the same time be reflected: “I know
I have complained a lot about Janis, but it’s not for her lack of work. I guess it’s more
how she sees the problems.” Sophia had a similar reaction to this role:

I think that most of my ideas are being left out. ...I ‘m discovering in the

process, it’s easy to then check out when your ideas are central... this

makes me wonder about Janis. . .maybe because her ideas aren’t included
as much she checks out.

Group Two

There were four members in group two, India, Nickie, Scarlett, and Matthew.
India was a 55 year-old Permanent Resident learner in the final year of her Master’s
program in Higher and Adult Education. She enrolled in her first two online courses
during this semester. India advised: “I am originally fiom England and immigrated to the
USA in 1985.” As a Graduate Assistant at Pervis, India was “involved in building
relationships between Pervis and the local community.”

India commented that she had two major issues with the Higher and Adult
Education program. First, she tended toward elitism; that is she believed “in a

meritocracy where university is about the best.” For example, she remarked that the

59

learners enrolled in the Students Affairs Masters’ program are not as prepared to write
according to what India considered “the university Master’s level” as the learners in the
Higher and Adult Education Masters program. Therefore, she thought they should be
required to write at a “university Master’s level” before they are adnritted to the program,
rather than allow them to develop as writers while in the program. Second, she did not
like collaborative learning or group work because she is an “independent learner” and the
Higher and Adult Education program uses group work a lot.

India stated, “I knew last year I should have taken this class, but there was a
scheduling error and I ended up taking the wrong class, which ended up being an
elective.” As she thought about taking an online course, India envisioned being able to
have “your feet up taking notes from a reading.” Yet, the reality of the course was quite
different from what she envisioned. She remarked:

While there is no travel involved, much time is spent physically using the

computer. . .you are physically connected to all of the activities and

cognitively engaging in the online process. Neither can I tune out the

voice of the instructor and reflect. There is no quiet time.

Her overall experience in this class was mixed. “The team process while frustrating has
challenged my assumptions about how knowledge is constructed and is a transforrnative
process.” Regarding her previous small group experiences, India remarked; “there is
often an unequal distribution of work which causes resentment.” India explained her
group experience in this class: “[it was] exhausting, tiring and fi'ustrating. I don’t think
I’ve ever been as frustrated.” She continued:

I struggled with the group process. I cannot think logically, as much as

India can ever think logically. I can’t think straight. And that’s my
biggest problem.

60

Nickie, the second member of group two, was a 25-year-old International learner
in the final year of her Master’s program in Higher and Adult Education. Nickie is from
a small country in the Middle East. She enrolled in her first two online courses during
this semester. Nickie delivered her first baby six weeks after the course began. In
addition, each member of her family experienced a number of health issues.

As an adult learner Nickie remarked; “I found myself lacking confidence ...
therefore, I need others’ direction to lead me.” Nickie commented on her course goals: “I
am taking this course because it is [a] core course in the program. Also it is [a] good
opportunity for me to know about what motivates adults to learn.” Nickie’s initial
reaction to the course was nervousness; “it’s a big challenge for me. I am quite nervous
because I don’t have much experience with the Internet.” Her initial fears were soothed
as she successfully completed the orientation activities. “Involvement in [orientation]
activity let you gain some experience. . .I learned how to do the upload.” Overall, Nickie
described her experience in the course in this way: “my experience and knowledge have
been enhanced in many ways and areas...online class helped me to grow technically.” As
Nickie grew more technically competent, she noted the challenges she faced in the class
wide chat rooms:

Facial expressions [were] missing, so hard to communicate, how to make

sure they understand me in text. Physical cues [were] missing to allow the

instructor and others to understand what I am saying. ...I like to chat

because it forces me to write quickly, but in the same time it makes me

angry at myself because I can’t follow my classmates. It is too speedy for

me.

Unlike others in the study, Nickie liked online classes better than face-to-face classes, she

explained: “I found the online course to be much less stress than the traditional class.

The advantage of online course is that every voice will be heard.”

61

Nickie’s only experiences with small groups were during her graduate program.
She did not work in small groups prior to entering the program when she came to the
United States. She commented on her group experience: “working in groups is better than
working individually because you get more ideas and other perspectives.” Regarding her
small group experience in this class Nickie noted:

Due to the time of my delivery I lost track of time and organization. This

made me uncomfortable and made my work much more difficult.

Therefore, I took refirge in my teammates and followed their leads...

Scarlett, the third member of group two, was a 40-year-old European American
female Life Long Learning student and was not working toward a degree. Scarlett was
enrolled in her first two online courses. During the semester, Scarlett was “on sabbatical”
from her job in which she teaches “composition and humanities at Mid State Community
College, both face-to-face and online.” Scarlett described herself: “I am an English
teacher interested in gardening. I am a novice gardener.”

As an adult learner, Scarlett explained; “I am still fairly a fly by night person — I
get a piece of information. . .and then pander and proselytize. . .” With regard to her
relationships with others she remarked: “I love the risk of a new relationship, it’s long
term relationships that I have a problem with.”

She enrolled in this class because she was “interested in taking an online
class. . .to experience what online students feel and experience. . .It just so happened that I
was able to get into this particular class...” Her initial experiences in the class were very
positive. She explained: “it was wonderful first of all just to be a student again. . .it was

great to be an online student because I could explore what I liked and I didn’t have to sit

and listen to a boring lecture.” Unlike the students who felt the orientation was helpful to

62

obtain technology skills, Scarlett described the process as “a lot of busy work.” As she
progressed in the class, Scarlett remarked: “it was great to pick and choose both the
online persona that I wanted to have as an online student, but to also just be able to have
someone else read my papers and not have to grade papers...” Scarlett also noted, that
she “learned a lot” while interacting in the class wide chat sessions. Overall she stated: “I
was very, very thankful that this was the class that I happened to take. I think it was the
perfect class for me. “

Scarlett never worked in small groups in an educational setting. She described
her experience with small groups in the workplace: “they don’t like the free flowing
process kind of thing.” She explained that people on her work-related committees tend to
jump to solutions without discussion because they are uncomfortable with the free
flowing process, and conflict involved more engaged discussion. Regarding her group
process in this class, Scarlett commented:

My small group work was not very satisfying. . .. it was challenging

because of the very different perspectives. ...I don’t think people are

willing to challenge points of view. You know because not very many

people are comfortable with conflict. I think what happens quite a lot and

it seemed to me in our small group was that if there was disagreement,

then often times it was just avoided.

Matthew, the fourth member of group two, was a 25-year-old European American
male in the final year of his Master’s program in Higher and Adult Education. He
enrolled in his first two online courses this semester. Matthew was a Director at a local
private liberal arts college about 40 minutes fi'om campus. He was scheduled for two

interviews but failed to keep the appointments. The information in this section was

obtained from his reflective papers and the course archived records.

63

Matthew’s personal ideology or philosophy was different Scarlett’s, and was also
different fiom the ideologies expressed in the assigned readings.

I had to come to terms with the reality that the complex [ity] of higher

education that I once looked upon with utopian eyes was beginning [to]

blur in the dense socio-political haze that now surrounds this. I always

presumed that a life in academia afforded you with the luxury to theorize

about the plight of others, but not to actually solve their conditions that

were based on socio-economics. That is not the purpose of higher

education? Or is it? And that is what I struggled with...

Regarding the group process, Matthew noted,

The most important lesson to be learned. . .to properly deal with being

confronted with ideological diversity. In conclusion, despite whether or

not the group and I share similar ideologies is not the issue. . .[I had to]

suspend personal philosophies for the common good of the cause. [It] is

about compromise.

Scarlett was a member of another group at the start of the class. One of the
members of her first group dropped the course, so she was reassigned to group two about
a week after the group had begun. The members of group two had three roles, a
facilitator, a recorder, and an editor. According to India, “the facilitator sets [the
timelines]. . .it doesn’t mean that people stick to it because things happen.” The group
members never officially defined the duties for the facilitator, the recorder, nor the editor.
Even though there was a person who was designated as the recorder, the facilitator was
actually the recorder and the editor as well as the facilitator for the group. That is, all the
roles collapsed into one role. Role assignments were made based on whoever volunteered
or when someone suggested that another member assume the role. All of the members
except Nickie served as the facilitator.

Group two only had one chat session. They used the discussion board most of the

time. Although Scarlett wanted to use the chat room more, she explained: “they weren’t

64

very comfortable with the chats, the other group members, because of the pace of the
chats or maybe they were afraid of the speed of things.” The group met face-to-face
twice, once with the instructor.

The patterns of participation were quite uneven. Scarlett explained: “the two
louder ones [herself and India] would sort of lead the way. . .Matthew did not participate
in any kind of satisfactory way. . .Nickie was not able to participate very much.” Scarlett
commented on the communication patterns when the group met face-to-face; “the same
patterns emerged as they did when we were online. . .the two louder ones always took the
lead.” When decisions were needed, someone suggested something and the group usually
agreed. While solving the problem, the members of group two a) read the problem
independently; b) divided up the guiding questions among India, Matthew, and Scarlett
(Nickie was usually assigned one non-theory related task, such as finding demographic
information); c) conducted independent research; and d) wrote their reactions to the
questions. During problem three, three of the members examined the guiding questions
and posted their comments to each one, and then they identified three areas they would
focus on. After the problem-solving process, the facilitator wrote the paper, by pulling
together the individual reactions to the guiding questions. Finally, the facilitator sent out
the paper for edits and comments.

The members of this group endeavored to care about one another. Scarlett
explained:

I think there was an attempt for some fiiendliness and people seemed to be

concerned for each other’s health and we did try our hardest I think to try

to be supportive of one another. And actually there was a tremendous

amount of patience; I would say in trying to be patient with people with

everybody’s schedules, with everybody’s weaknesses and limitations. I
think that we were quite tolerant with those things.

65

One of the challenges this group faced in their attempts to collaborate was that they had
few discussions. Although they posted extensively to the discussion board, there was
little interaction. In addition, India was quite vocal regarding the group’s progress.
Scarlett elaborated on this point:

It wasn’t a collaborative effort. You’re really not discussing. . .India was

very hardworking and conscientious. . .[but] she was hysterical most of the

time and she was very stressed out most of the time about time and about

schedules. That became a challenge because it was challenging to try and
keep her calm so that we were okay...

Group Three

 

There were three members in group three, Chris, Ginger, and Nard. Chris was a
32-year-old European American female Master’s student in her second year in the Higher
and Adult Education program. She enrolled “in school for both job advancement and self-
fulfillrnent.” Chris worked full-time as an academic programs’ secretary and part-time as
a Housing Director for a sorority. One of her reasons for coming back to school was to
“meet people because I’m single and to make new friends.” She explained, “I am
surrounded by 50 sorority girls on a daily basis where I live, so I need that outlet, that
stimulation.” This was her second online course.

With regard to herself she remarked; “I tend to be an independent learner.” Chris
enrolled in the course to:

fulfill [her] requirements for graduating. . .to get a better understanding

about the role of adult learning. . .so as to better understand, help and

motivate them. . .when I work with them in my student services career.”

Her reaction to online classes was mixed:

66

on the one hand I enjoy the self motivated learning the convenience of

being at home to work on class materials. Yet, I really enjoy the classroom

setting and the interactions and personal experiences with my peers.
She explained:

One of the reasons I went back to school after eight years was to meet new

people and have fun! Online chats cannot compare to socializing with

classmates at least not for me. . .you don’t get the voice. You don’t get the

face.

Yet, she noted a number of things she liked about the class. “I enjoy
collaboration“ and “I feel like I have learned a lot.” Regarding her previous experience
with small groups, Chris remarked: “you’re always nervous that you may get someone
who isn’t going to pull their own weight or isn’t going to take the project as a serious
issue or want to spend as much time...” She commented on her group experience in this
class: “I feel so inadequate as a group member.” She further explained:

I can’t contribute much to general knowledge of the situation [the

problem-solving process] because it’s something I’ve never studied

before. And I don’t have an interest in adult learning... I feel clueless

about the subject matter completely.

Ginger, the second member of group three, was a 26-year-old European American
female full-time Master’s student in Management. Regarding her past employment,
Ginger said: “I’ve been working as a [trainer] while being a chef.” Her “motivation” as a
learner had “changed” since becoming an adult. She explained that previously she “was
not motivated to learn.”

Ginger enrolled in the course to “go out after receiving my Master’s and perhaps
go into training, development, and become a research chef.” She described her initial

reaction to the course, “I am a little bit apprehensive about a virtual class. I am unsure

about what is truly expected and how this is going to work.” For Ginger, the orientation

67

became a way to “familiarize” herself with aspects of learning online and to get to know
others within the class. Ginger’s initial experience with this course was turbulent. “It
sometimes gets too confirsing trying to follow 10 people.” The instructor began to limit
the number of people in the lobby chat. Ginger commented: “much better chat this time.
I got to know people a lot better, and the conversation went well.” Yet, throughout the
semester Ginger felt the difficulty of communicating online. She explained: “I am an
oral learner. . .when I hear things I can remember it. [When] I read things, it goes in one
eye and out the other.”

Overall Ginger’s experience in this class was “good but occasionally fi'ustrating.”
For Ginger, “having the power of one’s learning is a very foreign, yet rewarding
experience.” The early reality of doing group work unsettled Ginger. At the beginning
of the course, she noted: “I’m not sure how this is all going to work-via e-mail and chat
room. Group work is difficult at best in person. I guess I’ll see. . .I hope we get to meet
face-to-face.” With regard to her previous small group experiences, Ginger noted: “it has
more or less been a negative experience.” She related that in a current class three of the
five members were “not pulling their own weight.” Due to her “lack of confidence in the
subject matter” in this class, she was frustrated. Ginger lamented: “I feel like the
albatross in this group.”

Nard, the third member of group three, was a 46-year-old European American
female Doctoral student in Agricultural Education. As resident of Lake City, Nard
“[drove] three hours to class and three hours back,” since as she announced; “my
coursework is very, very important to me.” Nard was a “a lover of great food

(preferably prepared by someone else), red wine, and the Sunday New York Times.” As

68

a full-time community college administrator, she was the chief development officer of a
college.” She had spent more than 20 years in higher education adrrrinistration in the
community college arena, and her job responsibilities required extensive travel out of
state. This was her second online course.

As an adult learner, Nard stated: “I believe that I may have a contribution to make
[in terms of] the shape and form of my education. . .there are days when I know exactly
what I want to learn and how I want to learn it!” She went on to explain; “initially I
suppressed those thoughts... [but now] I dislike the feeling of not being able to control
my own learning.”

Nard enrolled in the class “to build the right learning plan and the convenience.”
She noted her feelings about online classes; “in general, I have positive and not so
positive feelings [about online classes].” She enjoyed “the convenience,” but she missed
“the richness of the face-to-face class. . .spontaneous conversation.” Regarding
asynchronous communication online, Nard commented: “I’m liking it to eating cold
food. . .somebody gets really passionate about something that they were writing. . .by the
time I would get to it, it could be several hours or several days old.” Nevertheless, she
noted several things she enjoyed about the course: “the ability to delve into the theory. . .I
can reflect and still check something off the list. . .the journal is [an assignment]. . .and it
was more practitioner-oriented.”

Her previous experience with small groups was “quite extensive.” Regarding
those experiences, she related: “I have very high expectations of myself and therefore of
others. And when I sense that others aren’t working as hard or in a focused manner. . .I

get frustrated.” In this class Nard said; “I felt put upon. I felt like I was having to carry

69

more of the project than I should have.” She firrther elaborated; “at a certain point more
of the responsibility of the projects fell upon me like [I] became the teacher.” Nard
exclaimed: “I only have so much time to devote to each area of my life ...[I’d] rather be a
independent learner online than a dependent learner.”

The roles for group three were not clearly defined. They had a facilitator and a
recorder. Each member assumed both roles during the course. Chris explained: “I
volunteered the first time to be facilitator and then someone else volunteered to be the
recorder and then we just traded.” Ginger defined the recorders’ role:

a person [who] takes down all the chat room dialogue and transcribes it

and sends it to each other so [they] can read the problem out, all at one

chunk instead of trying to understand it as [they] went. The recorder also

puts together the paper.

In reality, however, as Chris explained: “Nard was always the facilitator.”

With regards to communication, the members chatted two or three times
per week. They had two to three telephone conference calls during each problem.

The three of them met face-to-face at Gingers’ home once during the semester,
however, Chris and Ginger met several times at Gingers’ home. Chris explained,
“we worked on stuff together or we would call Nard from her [Ginger’s] house or
we would email Nard from her [Ginger’s] house.” The communication tools also
included fax machines and the group’s discussion board.

Concerning group decision-making, Ginger explained:

One person would suggest something. . .[we] would either fall in line

because we thought it was a great idea or we would suggest something

different and we would compromise.

Everyone read through the problem a couple of times, and then they set up a time

to chat. They described a fairly typical pattern for each problem; a) brainstormed

70

their initial reactions to the problem; b) decided upon three different areas for
research; 0) conducted the research; d) met to discuss the guiding questions and e)
met to discuss the paper and assign tasks. Interestingly, their pattern varied at
times. For example, they were expected to share their research findings, but often
the group began to discuss a new hypothesis without a hill discussion of the
previous research efforts.

As the time approached to write the paper, they would meet via
conference calls. The members typed their sections, emailed it to one another, and
the designated recorder cut and pasted the information into the paper outline. The
recorder then sent copies of the paper to the group members for editorial
comments. During the second and third problems, Chris and Ginger worked on
the paper fi'om Ginger’s home and faxed information to Nard who was out of
town on business. The group debriefed either in the chat room or via telephone
conference.

The members of this group often traveled out of town. Therefore, they
exchanged contact information so that the other members knew how to contact
them. Chris noted:

We were working on this lesson and there were different parts and Nard

was here and Ginger was [there] It was always like okay, checking in,

where are you? Where are you going to be? Give me your fax number,
your cell number. I’m going to be at this email, but I’m shutting my
computer off at this time so if you’re going to get me something, get it to

me before then, otherwise I’ll call you or fax you. And you know waiting
for the revisions. It was exciting. It was firn. It was enjoyable.

71

One of the challenges the group faced was a perception that neither Ginger
nor Chris understood the issues within the problems, the course content, or how to
problem-solve. Nard explained,

[The members of my group in this class] had such a hard time

understanding some of the concepts. . .nobody else understood it. I wasn’t

willing to submit the material that they presented as possible, for inclusion

as it was. I didn’t think they were demonstrating an understanding of
material.

Summary

The course was designed in a problem-based format in which the learners were
expected to learn course content by working on ill-structured problems reflective of
educational practice. The course was taught entirely online, with no mandatory face-to-
face contact. The instructor divided the course into eight small groups of three or four
heterogeneous members. Three of the groups (ten learners) were selected for this study.

The participants enrolled in the course because they thought online learning
would provide flexibility to learn around their busy schedules, while also satisfying
program requirements and personal goals. They described mixed emotions about learning
online due to their apprehension about the technology, the lack of a face-to-face contact,
and their ability to work with online groups. Some of their negative emotions were
alleviated by the activities scheduled during the orientation weeks. The orientation
allowed some of the members to feel more comfortable as they proceeded.
Communicating online continued to present challenges to a number of the participants.
While the orientation period brought temporary relief to their apprehensions about the

technology, this relief was short lived when the members’ thoughts turned to the need to

72

do online group work. Their thoughts of group work seemed to bring into stark relief the
participants past experiences with small group work in their classes. The participants’
current small group experiences appeared to mirror their past experiences with groups.

In summation, each group differed in its composition, its problem-solving
approach, and its ways of communicating. For example, each of the groups had defined
group roles, but only one group (group one) consistently used the roles throughout the
semester. Two of the groups met face-to-face at least once and used the telephone to
meet. The strengths and challenges of each group are more fully explored in the next
chapter which presents a cross analysis of the three groups, as separate cases. This cross
case analysis discusses the issues the group members encountered, the strategies they

used to cope with the issues, and the consequences of those coping strategies.

73

CHAPTER FIVE

RESULTS OF THE CROSS CASE ANALYSIS

In this chapter, I present the results of a cross case analysis of the three groups
included in this study. The participants in this study experienced a fundamental
ambivalence to group work from three sources: (1) absence of a teacher to provide
traditional instruction, (2) a perceived threat to their sense of voice, and (3) the
uncertainty of working across difference. They adopted coping strategies to manage the
ambivalence and to reclaim their individuality. The coping strategies were
dissatisfactory. As a result, they felt alienated and isolated from the group. After
completing the project they felt exhilarated and triumphant over their achievement, and
drew closer to the group again. They anticipated the benefits of working as a group again.
Drawing closer to the group generated the same ambivalent feelings that caused them to
seek independence from the group in the first place. This cycle repeated itself during
each problem-solving process.

There are five parts in this chapter. The first part presents the three sources of
ambivalence. I outline the coping strategies in the second part. The third part contains
the consequences of the coping strategies. In the fourth section, I present a brief
description of the learning outcomes, and some glimmers of individual growth as a result
of participating in the course. The chapter ends with a summary of the cross case

analysis.

74

Sources of Ambivalence
In this section, I discuss the three sources of ambivalence; (1) absence of a teacher
to provide traditional instruction, (2) a perceived threat to one’s sense of voice, and (3)
the uncertainty of working across difference. There are a number of underlying issues
within each source. The sources are tightly bound, and share common issues. The

sources are teased apart for discussion purposes.

The Group as Teacher

The need to learn the course content and resolve ill-structured problems without
the traditional guidance and direction from the teacher was one of the first difficulties the
group members encountered. They needed to learn from one another and thus the group
became the teacher. In doing so, they needed to de-authorize the teacher of record, Jack,
authorize themselves, and authorize one another. They described this process as very
emotionally charged. The following discussion presents both the benefits as well as the
frustrations associated with sharing the teaching responsibility.

Absence of traditional guidance to work through the assigned problems: Many
of the participants enjoyed the problems, described an ability to make meaningful and
immediate relevance, or to identify future relevance to their lives. Yet, they became very
frustrated with the need to grapple with the complexity of the problem and the subject
matter content without the traditional instruction from the teacher.

As noted in the course context, all of the problems were situated in a higher

education setting, but were applicable to other adult contexts as well. Participants such as

75

Nard, Scarlett, and Donald who currently worked full-time jobs in higher educational
settings were able to identify immediate relevance with the problems. Scarlett explained:

The problems themselves were very relevant to my work experience, my

daily work experience, {and} my daily problem. So all three of them [the

problems] were. When a problem has a lot to do with what you’re doing,

you really want to put your heart into it because you’re trying to solve this

problem too.

Participants, such as Janis, without the practical experience, noted the parallel between
the issues her group experienced in this class and the issues within the problem.

I mean the group more or less reflected some of the problems too... It

really makes you really want to dig deep to try to help these people out. . .I

was empowered, my voice was important because I had to try to figure out

what would be the best method to resolve these situations.

Others like Ginger, enjoyed the problems even though they were unable to identify
immediate relevance to their lives.

I like problem-based learning in a sense that it’s like doing math problems,

just doing math problems and just doing it for no reason... It’s like the

word problems to my math problems. You learn these theories and you

learn how to do something, but how does it really apply... Not necessarily

in my life right now, I can probably draw upon these theories and seeing

how they do apply in real life and how they do affect things...

Nevertheless, the participants described considerable discomfort when discussing
the problem within their groups due to uneven motivation, the complexity of the
problems, and their inability to understand the subject content. Scarlett, who made
immediate connections with each problem explained: “it wasn’t the case for my group
mates. So that was a problem in itself because they didn’t have the same sort of drive to
do it and also the same perspectives.” Janis noted the complexity of the problem: “It’s

very difficult; there are so many layers.” Ginger noted her frustration: “due to my lack of

confidence in the subject matter, I felt frustrated.”

76

Whereas a few participants embraced the challenge, others described further
anxiety generated by the need to resolve these complex, messy, and ambiguous problem
without traditional instruction. As India explained: “We’re not having a class in adult
learning theory just to get us going. We actually learn it as we go along.” Nickie
remarked:

We shared our vision about this problem. So through the interaction with
my team the learning process occurred. All team members were
responsible for one another’s learning as well as their own. Thus, I
believe that the success of one student helps other students to be
successful. In my opinion, the collaborative learning is very helpful and it
has many advantages that students can benefit from, such as an increase in
the motivation of the student to work more, an improvement in student’s
self-esteem, and a more developed sense of responsibility for the whole
group and himself. Moreover, in order to solve any problem I learned that
working with [a] group is better than working individually... promotes
critical thinking.
Others such as Sophia, found assistance in the instructor’s notes on the group and
lobby discussion boards and chat rooms. She commented:
If we had questions about the project or something, we would either e-
mail him or put them on the discussion board and he would respond. I felt
really free to ask him anything, which is good. And then yeah, a lot of our
like initial research and then we always posted our drafts of everything
that we were working on; so we could all read them and respond. [The
instructor] actually read them a couple of times, which was really helpful.
Like he would take a look at it and say you're on the right track or do this
or that.
Others, like Chris, felt a modest increase in assistance from the instructor would have
been helpful: “[I need to] have more understanding of the theory, as opposed to self
learning and more opportunities to talk to Jack in person about those theories and ask him

questions.” She explained:

A couple of times we went in the wrong direction. It was a waste of time
and a waste of research. But if maybe ...we had three hours ...and asking

77

him questions about it and talking to him about it, maybe we wouldn’t
have gone that wrong direction.

The participants’ descriptions revealed a range of issues related to juggling the
complex problems without traditional instruction, which are described below. To
proceed, they needed to shift their dependence upon the teacher and vest that authority in
one another by de-authorizing the teacher.

De-authorizing the teacher: The participants described their ambivalence toward
de-authorizing the teacher and the text as their primary sources. Donald described this
issue within one of his own classes that he was teaching: “The junior level class is having
a hard time with granting authority to others besides the granting of authority to me as the
teacher.” Much like Donald’s students, a number of the participants in this study also had
a hard time de-authorizing the teacher. The process challenged their beliefs about
learning, and they wanted the convenience of maintaining the status quo.

Participants such as India and Donald described how collaborative learning
challenged their beliefs about learning. India noted: “I’m very stately. I’m very
entrenched in traditional learning ...where the teacher is the expert. . .that is very very
hard for me to get away from...” Moreover, the struggle began when she started the
graduate program in higher and adult education. India explained: “I’m very entrenched
in traditional learning and it’s been a real journey for me to come into this program and
discover about transfonnative, collaborative learning, postmodern theory...” She
continued: “that’s what my whole portfolio is about, my journey of trying to

accormnodate this new learning style to my personal style.”

78

Participants such as Sophia expressed their struggle to de-authorize the text and
authorize themselves. On the one hand, Sophia noted: “I am an open-ended kind of let’s
just look at whatever is interesting and take it in.” On the other hand, she remarked:

I had this inner struggle. . .Jack said something too on-line like read the

problem and then follow your heart where it leads, with what the problem

is saying and don’t worry about having to read every word of the assigned

[readings]. Split it up with your group and find what applies. And I was

just like I don’t know if I can do that, not read all the assigned readings,

you know? Am I missing something? I don’t know, I kind of like freaked

out a little bit. ..

Others like Nard, embraced the opportunity to use her own expertise, but she still
wanted to “tap into the instructor’s knowledgez”

Well, my teachers may still be experienced and wise, but now I also

believe that I may have a contribution to make in the shape and form of

my education. Indeed, there are days, when I am sure that I know exactly

what I want to learn and how I want to learn it.”

As she reflected upon the class, however, she concluded: “I was not able to tap into the
knowledge and experience of the instructor as much as I would have liked.” De-
authorizing the teacher was difficult because of prior beliefs about teaching. Moreover,
while a few participants embraced the ability to “shape and form” his or her learning,
they still needed to maintain the status quo. The anxiety associated with the need to de-
authorize the instructor was compounded by their need to assume a new role and become
teachers to one another.

Their new role as teachers: The previous quote from Nard exemplified
another issue for the groups. The participants needed to authorize one another and
accept authority from each other. The participants’ descriptions suggested three
fundamental issues with authorizing others: a) an inability to trust group

members’ thinking, work ethic, and/or skills; b) the need to accept responsibility

79

for their fellow group members; and c) the perception that this role neglected their

personal needs. Donald explained the tension by comparing the students in one of

his classrooms and his personal issues of trust with the process.

They have a hard time turning in one project. Everyone wants to do their
own project or turn in their part individually. There may be a trust issue
here as well. Maybe students don’t trust the others to turn in a portion of
the project. . .I find this hard myself in this class. I don’t know if I would
call it granting authority or trusting, but with each person working on their
own section, we as a group entrust the others to do their section properly
with the same care and diligence that we ourselves would do. This is
difficult for me. Some in my group [Sophia] I trust whole-heartedly
because it seems like we think alike.

Donald could readily trust Sophia, because her thinking aligned with his, but he

expressed his difficulty trusting Janis, who did not think like himself. “Trusting group

members with the same thoughts is pretty easy, but it is scary trusting members whose

ideas don’t seem to be along the same lines as mine.”

skills.

Nard complained that the members of her group simply did not have the proper

There seemed to be, to me, a lack of depth of understanding of even the
problem identification. . .It’s a skill that you need to learn over time and
it’s something that you require. . .. they didn’t have that kind of practical
experience and so therefore it’s real difficult to come at a problem and just
go right at it. It’s problem-solving. It’s problem identification.

India commented on her group members’ work ethic. She praised Matthew’s skills in

problem two, suggesting that he was a “promising writer.” Yet, when he turned in the

first draft of the group paper, she complained: “He kind of put it together, but it didn’t

make sense because it wasn’t copying and pasting and putting ideas where they belonged,

it was copied and pasted, period.” She felt that she had to finish the work and

80

complained: “They say you got to trust your classmates. If I had trusted my group in this
instance, if I had not stepped up to the plate. . .the paper would not have been done.”

A second aspect of authorizing others in the group is the need to accept the
authority that fellow members grant to you. That is, each member must accept
responsibility for his or her fellow group members’ learning. Accepting authority,
however, was perceived as unfair and inconvenient. India related a story in which the
members of previous groups outside of this class did not have equal motivation to learn
the proper skills required to put a presentation together. She complained:

You do try and help your teammates. You do try to say to them well why

don’t you try this, or why don’t you do that. But it just seems that many

instances, the group process doesn’t work... This does not mean a team

member should not be helped or that we should not find out what their

barriers are. I am suggesting there should be a ceiling for tolerance

Accepting authority from other learners was also inconvenient for the
participants, which caused additional anxiety. The groups were provided two weeks for a
group orientation before the beginning of problem one to get to know one another, set
rules, etc. Janis however, had technology problems and was unable to join the group
until the second meeting of the third week - the week they should have been discussing
the first problem. Sophia and Donald however, began the problem-solving process at
their first meeting. Thus, when Janis joined the chat session during the third week, Sophia
and Donald had made considerable progress on the problem. Sophia explained:

[It] was just difficult to start at the middle. We only had maybe a week or

two left before the thing was due, so we were like well we can’t really

slow down. You know we have to get it done.

Finally, participants perceived that their personal needs were neglected while

working collaboratively. For example, Donald explained: “If we do all this you know feel

81

good, as I call it sometimes, this feel good social stuff and everybody shares experiences
and stuff, not everybody is going to benefit from that. . ..” Yet, to provide the group the
authority it needed to conduct its work, the group needed to accept responsibility for their
own learning. However, attending to this process generated further tension for the
participants.

The underlying tension within this issue reflects the need for the group members
to take responsibility for a large part of their own learning, while still clinging to a vision
of learning in which they rely heavily on the instructor and the text. Three ongoing issues
or needs characterized this tension for the participants: resolving complex problems
without traditional instruction, de-authorizing the instructor, and becorrring co-teachers.
These issues persisted throughout the course, as participants went through cycles of

tension related to their individual needs and the needs of the group.

The Individgal in the Collaborative Group

The participants had a responsibility to the group as well as to themselves as
individuals. Chris explained: “It is necessary to find a common ground amongst the
members in order to proceed for the good of the group, not the individ .”

The need to “proceed for the good of the group” created tension for the
participants. They needed the group for the benefits it provided, but they sensed that by
relying on the group, they lost the ability to fully meet their own needs as learners. The
central issue confi'onting these participants was the loss of individuality. Their stories
suggest that one has to “give up” something to become group members. Balancing the
needs of both the group and the individual was complex and emotionally laden. As India

inquired: “Can you be an individual in a collaborative setting? That is the tension!” A

82

discussion of the individual within the group points to the cyclical nature of emotionality,
the consensus as “win/lose,” and the correlation between voice and identity.

Cycle of emotionality: The tension created with regard to being an individual in a
collaborative setting manifested itself around the need for consensus. The participants
indicated that their individuality was most compromised when they attempted to reach
consensus. Thus, the participants’ stories reflected periods of positive comments about
the group punctuated with moments of negative comments with the process. These
fluctuating emotional cycles reflected recurring patterns. Moments of positive comments
about the group occurred during initial discussion of the problems, at the beginnings of
the problem-solving process, and during the reflection period immediately after they
turned in their papers. More negative comments occurred when the members began to
narrow their focus to reach consensus regarding group decisions.

In figure two below, Sophia draws a picture of this process in her jorunal.

Figure 2 A Cycle of Emotions

 

83

This picture serves to depict the process of emotionality for problem two, but also
lends insight into the process for each problem. Note that at the beginning of this cycle
problem two was seen as “exciting and helpful and fun.” Nonetheless, when the members
began to narrow their focus the process, she described her experience as “limiting and
challenging.” The project is depicted as “disappointing because if leaves out some fun
ideas.” What is not illustrated on the drawing is the nature of the group debriefing
process when the group assessed and reflected upon both the group process and the
learning. Quotes from Sophia’s journal help to explain this feature of the cycle. During
the final week of problem one, the group experienced tension over group due dates.
Sophia was the recorder and responsible for completing the final edits. The group had set
a time for Janis and Donald to send Sophia their final edits for the paper. Janis and
Donald indicated that they did not have any additional comments so they did not send
Sophia anything. Sophia did not know that failure to comment meant they did not have
anything to add, so she continued to check the discussion board and wait. Sophia noted in
her journal:

This week has been all about group learning, group process and nothing

about adult learning. Maybe I’m learning my own style. This week I’ve

learned that I can get very frustrated with rrriscommunication. I am an

adult who cares about learning, so when miscommunication happens, it

fi'ustrates me. This happens in life and in e-life. © ”

In contrast, though, after the group debriefing, Sophia noted: “I feel good about our
group. . .I realize that we were all communicating and miscommunicating. Life in group
work!”

This cyclical nature of their emotions reflected the difficulty the participants

experienced with regard to the consensus process. The participants enjoyed the times

84

when they discussed and shared ideas, but were much less enthusiastic about the need to
reach consensus. They progressed through this cycle of ambivalence with each problem.
The reflection period at the end of each problem-solving process allowed the participants
to rethink the group process and reclaim their positive feelings about the group. Part of
the problem is found in the participants’ definitions of consensus. The next section
presents this dilemma.

Consensus as win/lose: The participants clearly described the consensus process
as a win-lose approach. They sensed the need to “give up” something to reach
consensus. The group became the winners; while the participants did not feel that they
gained anything in the consensus process. Most of the participants appreciated the
opportunity to be actively involved in the learning process, to share their ideas with
others, and to listen to what others had to say. Yet, many deeply resented the consensus
process which was required in order to collaboratively construct the meaning of the case,
to decide what research was relevant to the case, and to select an appropriate resolution to
the perceived problems in the case. Sophia voiced this tension:

The experience itself was a mixed bag, and there were positives and

negatives. Sometimes I was really frustrated. It would be so much easier if

I could just do this myself. And then other times I was like this is good,

I'm glad that everyone is here and I don't have to do this all myself. It just

really depended on the day and where we were at.

Group membership motivated them to persist and to participate, enhanced their
learning, taught them skills for the workplace, and created a space to be heard, listened
to, and empowered. Donald and Ginger described increased motivation when their work

affected fellow team members. Donald explained: “if you are a team player-type person, I

think it’s helpful because me, as a group member, I don’t want to let down my other

85

group members.” Ginger agreed: “being a part of a group drives you to participate and
you know you’ve got these responsibilities, it’s not just to yourself, [if] you slack off
you’re affecting two other people directly.”

Janis commented on the ways in which group settings created a space to be heard
and listened to:

There is more opportunity for your voice to be heard. There’s more

opportunity for you to feel empowered even. To feel as if you have some

influence on the direction that the group goes in. Your opinions could be

more valued and [respected].

Nickie agreed: “The project gave my fellows and me the opportunity to exchange ideas,
opinions, research, experience, data, and expertise on the problem that we were working
on.” Others mentioned that working in a group enhanced their learning. For example,
Ginger explained:

If I had to do the problem-based learning by myself for the project, [if] the

problems... were smaller and we did them all on our own and we did our

own papers. I don’t think I would have learned as much because we all

look at different parts, aspects, of the problem. We start out very quietly

and look at everything that possibly could be influencing the problem,

what could be an issue, and then we come near our focus as it goes.

Nickie commented on the benefits one derives for future work: “working in a group
prepared us for future careers where working in a group is very vital.”

On the other hand, some participants feared that by fully integrating into the
group through the consensus process, they would obliterate their individuality. Matthew
exclaimed: “it’s all about comprorrrise.” Yet, through compromise they faced the loss of
their individual uniqueness. The participants sensed that working in a group placed them

in a ‘Rvin/lose” situation. India elaborated on the issue of compromise:

When I’m in a group not only am I negotiating knowledge, I’m
negotiating the fact that their point of view may be different from my

86

point of view. So therefore, I’m going to have to compromise my position
to match theirs, and if you don’t compromise, your grade depends upon
that paper, ...you never agree. . .somebody in a group has to take the
initiative to at least put a tentative paper together [the first draft]. . .So that
is my big negative.

For those like Matthew, the compromise involved their personal phiIOSOphy. “Despite
whether or not the group and I share similar ideologies is not the issue. . .[I had to]
suspend philosophies for the common good of the cause. . .[it] is about compromise.”
Many participants felt that their grade was compromised. India elaborated:

I’ve never really focused on grades for me. I’m focused on process and

what I am learning. . .my grade should not have been dependent on my

three group mates. It should’ve been an independent grade for the merit of

the work that I had put, fine, if my work wasn’t very good. I could live

with making mistakes and getting things wrong -— that is not my issue. I

don’t have to be a super student and right all of the time. Being right is not

my issue. It is doing your best and working hard and coming up with the

best work that you can do and to be rewarded for that.

In addition to the desire for individual accountability, a few participants found
that the emphasis on collective problem-solving ignored their unique learning needs. In
musing about the new learning-centered approach, Donald reflected this concern:

If we do all this you know, feel good, as I call it sometimes, this feel good

social stuff and everybody shares experiences and stuff, not everybody is

going to benefit from that. By breaking the problem down, it allows us to

each work with a manageable amount, but in doing so we become experts

on one aspect of the problem. If we could somehow become experts on the

whole problem and engage ourselves in the knowledge that the other[s]

[his group members] have acquired [that] would be of great benefit.

The tension around the need to be both an individual and a group member became
so severe that India protested rather bluntly: “I don’t want a group voice. I don’t think
group voice. I just don’t. And so it antagonizes me to the point that I don’t want to do it.”

The members wanted to hang on to their individuality. India elucidated: ”in the course of

collaborative learning, I think they have may be in some ways turned out the baby with

87

the bottle of water that you still need to promote individual learning, individual skills.”
India seemed to confuse the metaphor, “throwing the baby out with the bath water,” but
her meaning was clear; individual learning, which to her was a good thing, had been
overly compromised. The members appeared to be caught in a web. They liked
collaborative learning and understood the benefits they derived from participation. At the
same time, they feared that by entering into the consensus process, they needed to
compromise, which would result in winners (group) and losers (themselves as
individuals). The tension was not constant, but rather as Sophia noted above: “[It] really
depended on the day and where we were at.”

Individuality and voice: In addition to the win/lose tension, the participants also
perceived they that they were giving up their own voice. The struggle to retain their
unique contributions in both the discussion and the written product demonstrated a
second tension around loss of voice. The concept of individuality seemed tightly bound
with a sense of voice. It is as though a loss of voice was equal to a loss of individuality.
In an instance where Janis perceived her voice was not valued, she lamented: “I felt left
in the cold... non-existent.” Interestingly, however, this concern for the loss of
individuality was expressed through contradictory perceptions. Some felt that it was
important to have all voices literally represented in the group’s report. Janis asserted:
“Everyone’s [voice] in the group should be heard and seen in the product.” Chris pointed
out that, when she was the facilitator, she would “make sure ...we [Chris and Ginger]
weren’t missing anything .. .that we [Chris and Ginger] included everybody else’s

information.” Surprisingly, some voiced this same sentiment, even though they might

88

perceive a group member’s contribution as completely disconnected from the other work.
Scarlett explained:

One person can’t decide that one piece doesn’t work, because that is what
they contributed. You just can’t throw something out. I mean, you can’t do
it even though you know that it doesn’t seem to connect with what the rest
of the group has done. But you can’t, you just can’t do it, it doesn’t seem
to be fair.

Thus, some members felt the need to literally represent all members of the group in
their final product, even when the contribution might have negatively impacted the final
group product. Still, other participants perceived that not having one’s ideas literally
represented in the final product canceled their voice. In reflecting on her group’s work
on one of the problems, Sophia wrote in her journal: “I think that most of my ideas on
this one are being left out. . .I am finding out that in the process it’s easy to [see] when
your ideas aren’t central.” Ginger lamented: “I am not sure how all my expertise [and]
literature is going to fit in. It should fit somewhere. . ..” The presence of dominant group
member(s) also served to diminish members’ sense of voice. Janis, an Afiican American
explained how her voice was diminished when the other members of her group, two
European Americans, critically questioned her contributions:

I just felt when we were chatting and I would express my feelings on
something or the way I would see something, it would just be seriously
like critically questioned. . .the time would come around when we would
all express our feelings. We would just interactively chat and tell each
other you know well I see this, I see that or whatever. Or we would post it
to the discussion board. And it seems like they would come off, my two
group members, they would talk, express their feelings and so then I
would express my feelings. Well I feel that such thing. I think you're
wrong. I believe it's this way. I wouldn't say that. I would just say well
my feelings about the situation is blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then
they would [be] like what do you mean by that? So then after I had
already explained fully what I meant by it, I would still be questioned of

what I meant. . .Consideration of questions or responses should never be
taken lightly; no matter how un-inspired you may feel.

89

Chris also expressed how this dominance affected their group. She described a
situation in which Nard was out of town on a business trip during problem three.
Chris and Ginger were at Ginger’s home working on the paper and they were
faxing information to Nard via a fax machine. Chris complained: “Our research
or our suggestions just got eliminated cause it was Nard’s turn to put the paper
together.” She explained: “[Nard] was selectively picking out what she want[ed]
to use.”

The dominant members also sensed the tension over diminishing fellow
group members’ sense of voice. Sophia lamented: “I feel guilty about silencing
[J anis].” Nard also mused on this issue as she described how her ideas remained
central during work on problem two.

That was my idea and maybe it was just difficult for other people.

Nobody offered an alternative, so we went with that idea and I think when

it is not your original thought, it’s more difficult to align with.

The central issue in the struggle was the fear that they would lose their voice and
thus their individuality. Despite the fact that the participants in this study welcomed the
opportunity to be heard and involved in the group, they needed to hold tightly to their
individual sense of identity. The tension reflected the struggle between the members’
personal identity and their group membership. This situation manifested itself in cyclical
periods of satisfaction and dissatisfaction around the need to reach consensus. The need
to “learn to dance” with diversity, a closely related but separate issue, further complicates

the tensions of individuality versus the group.

90

The Diversity In The Group
In addition to the ambivalence generated from sharing the teaching responsibility
and the struggle associated with group membership, the participants faced equally
bittersweet benefits and frustration working with diverse group members. Sophia
compared the process to “learning to dance.” She elaborated:
You’re all learning the steps but you have to be mindful of the other
person’s steps too, and you just can’t go in there and bust and move
without being aware of what other people are doing. And when you all
can do it together, it can be a much more beautiful thing than if you’re just
all kind of in your own little world. There is some stepping on toes that
occurs on occasron.

The ability to dance with diversity required the members to be mindful of one another’s
steps as the group proceeded. That is, the group needed to move together and be in sync.
The need to move together with multiple sources of diversity highlights an
underlying tension. The members could use their diversity to generate different solutions

to the assigned problems and approaches to the group papers. On a cognitive level the
members articulated the requirement, which indicated that they understood what was
needed. Moreover, the ability to collaborate among the various sources of diversity was
a bittersweet experience that reflected the many benefits and frustrations for the
participants. The tension associated with the “diversity dance” was also an iterative cycle,
which included the shocking reality of encountering their diversity, the paralyzing feeling
of hitting a wall, and the daunting task of attempting to break through the wall.
Encountering diversity: As demonstrated in Figure 1 on page 52, each group was

very diverse. Collectively, diversity included explicit differences such as age, culture,

gender, ethnicity, and race, as well as implicit differences such as educational

91

background, expertise, ideology, learning preferences, and academic status (e.g.,
Master’s, Doctoral, or non-degree).

Working with diversity required considerable attention as group members
discussed the issues within the problem, reached consensus regarding their hypothesis,
designed an outline for the paper, and wrote the paper. The process required full
participation amongst the participants. Janis remarked: “Patience of each other’s ideas,
style, and method should be practiced and respected. Also, reflection is important to
make sure the direction of action and ideas have not been lost.”

On a cognitive level, the group members articulated a clear understanding of what
was required to collaborate among diverse group members. Scarlett remarked:

[Collaboration] means that it’s not just three or four pieces shoved

together. It’s where people put their piece, it gets revised and changed, so

that through the process of discussing, debating, criticizing, feedback

something is created that would not have been created in any shape or

form individually.

Chris noted:

I think that divided up parts is more when you’re delegated a topic area

and you do your research independently. A collaboration means that you

take the topic and you work together to research, you discuss, you

brainstorm to get the information that you‘re looking for.

A number of the participants initially expressed the “good” that should come'from
having diverse perspectives. Diversity provides opportunities to create new knowledge
by exchanging ideas and hearing different perspectives. With regard to new knowledge,
India explained that the purpose of collaborative learning was not new:

[It has been around] since [the time] you know we all sat around the fire

chewing on our you know raw meat I mean to me it’s discussion and

getting new ideas. . .it’s the same thing just with a different name. I mean

talking about a particular issue, bouncing ideas off each other, and saying
to somebody, boy that’s really neat I never thought of that. Makes me

92

look at something in a new way. See that is new knowledge that is
creating new knowledge.

Ginger related the benefits of hearing different perspectives:

I like getting the different perspectives of people. My MBA classes [are]

all about people who are going to go towards business degrees and that

sort of thing. And I wasn’t exposed to people who are in education or

other fields that had different goals and different mindset

perspectives. . ..each of us, in the group comes from distinctly different

backgrounds. Each of us saw the problems fi‘om a different angle. In the

learning process, that helps a great deal. Having a diverse population of

students offers the opportunity for divergent thought. I appreciate

diversity of minds. In the workplace, I have found it critical to have

different perspectives on a given problem.

As the learners began the process of shifting through the multiple sources of
diversity, the joy faded. Donald remarked: “Collaborative learning when done correctly,
forces each individual to look at a topic and see where they stand on an issue.” Contact
with different stances on topics brought into stark relief the diversity that each opinion
represented. Janis explained: “I thought that it was good that we all had kind of different
backgrounds. The simplest things are sometimes the hardest...” Janis described the
paradox of working with difference, she remarked: on the surface, it seemed like a “good
thing” but was actually hard to do. Scarlett agreed and explained the difficulty:

You would think that having very different perspectives would be really

wonderfirl. I mean that would be my assumption about that, but I guess

you would have to have people willing to understand different

perspectives and that takes a lot of work.

As Janis and Scarlett elucidated, working with different perspectives and backgrounds
sounds easy, but in reality it requires work to have discussions where everyone is allowed
to take a stand.

Group member’s opinions did not always align with the others and caused some

deep emotional discomfort during problem resolution and paper construction. Scarlett, a

93

European American female community college instructor, remarked on Matthew’s views
on multiculturalism and alternative ways of teaching. “He didn’t believe in
multiculturalism. He didn’t believe in alternative kinds of ways of teaching.” She further
commented that Matthew was “severely classist.” She explained: “I think there was a
Black guy in his class that he was in a group with, he made some fairly negative
comments about him, and that he didn’t think that everything is about race.” Matthew, a
European American confirmed his inability to accept multiculturalism. He remarked:
“When a culture is self-consciously diverse, diversity will disappear. Assimilation does
not come fiom suppressing difference; it comes from mainstreaming it.”

Chris noted the difficulty of the dance during the problem-solving process: “we
weren’t on the same page. . .everyone kind of threw their ideas out there. We all agreed on
the problem but did not agree on the components. . .when you have dissension, it’s
difficult...” She elaborated:

It’s not as simple as I thought it was going to be. There’s a lot of different

ways to look at the problem with the experiences that you’ve had, the

schooling that you’ve had, or just what you can offer. So when you’re

doing this with more than just one person, there’s a lot of things to keep in

mind or to handle other than just what is the problem.

India explained the difficulty with the bittersweet experience of writing a paper with
diverse group members.

We all have such different opinions that it’s exciting we all really have

the same ideas but verbally we come fi'om very different places and we all

agree. . .It’s when we get to writing, everybody writes well but we don’t

really write as a group. . ..it’s like pulling teeth. . .the group is so diverse

that it can be quite a challenge to get things done.

Working collaboratively with differences is fun and exciting for participants, yet it is also

challenging and fi'ustrating. The members were thus caught in a paradox. On the one

94

hand, they enjoyed the diversity but the need to work with or “to get things done” in a
diverse group caused anxiety. As they continued to shift through the sources of diversity,
the members became stuck. The next section highlights the profound anxiety generated
by the diversity.

Hitting a wall: In addition to the distress associated with the reality of their
diversity, the members appeared paralyzed, as though they did not know what to do next.
The weight of the diversity temporarily immobilized the participants. Sophia explained
that the group had “hit a wall.” Donald remarked:

There’s definitely been times where we got stuck and didn’t know what to

do, where to go, and we would just sit there and ask ourselves: Where do

we go? What do we do? We were at a roadblock as a group.

The participants “hit a wall” when they perceived the need to reach agreement, that the
problems had no right or wrong answers, that the extent of the diversity was
overwhelming, and when they had a difficult time making a decision. Interestingly, the
perception of consensus as a ‘fivin/lose” situation generated tension around the loss of
voice and identity. Nevertheless, the participants hit the wall because they perceived the
need to agree. That is, participants sensed the need to both give up something and reach
agreement to move forward. Sophia reacted to the need to reach agreement:

It’s hard to see how thing work together and don’t work together,

especially when we all have different agendas when we come to the table.

How does a paper get written when each person disagrees?

The ambiguity of the problem and its components created the sense that they had
hit a wall for participants like Donald. He provided an example of the ambiguity within

the problems.

There’s really you know no right answer [to the problems]. . ..there are all
kinds of variables that you need to take in and account for. . ..There aren’t

95

a whole lot of true facts. [For example], problem #3, it states “you are
going on a tight budget.” Well, what’s a tight budget, you know? Are we
talking about millions of dollars or are we talking about hundreds of
dollars? So you know there is a big discrepancy there... We don’t have the
facts. But we do need to take that into consideration. Whereas if we had
that monetary value okay, we need to do this and all we have is $45,000
then that will be another fact that might alter what we’re producing here
because of that monetary figure. . .I would like to know as much as I can
onit

The participants were also overwhelmed by the extent of diversity. It was though
they were “shackled by a heavy burden” unable to move. India exclaimed: “I can’t think
straight. It’s like in a bowl of spaghetti for me. It’s like thinking out of a bowl of
spaghetti. . ..” She elaborated:

Well everybody comes to the group with their different individual learning
styles. Now you’ve got the kid, if you like, who is just there for the grade.
You’ve got the stressed out single mother who barely makes it to class
because they can’t get childcare, and it gets canceled at the last minute, so
they are arriving not in a learning mode. You’ve got the over achievers
like me. And you’ve just got the kind of average [student]. . .sometirnes I
think it’s maybe an inter-generational thing,. . .So then we are given these
tasks to do. .. So you have this pile of spaghetti and then you throw in the
subject matter, which is in this instance, adult learning. And you know the
theory is everywhere. So there are two mixes of spaghetti. Then on top of
that, some people have got a background in psychology and some people
haven’t. . ..My final part is you throw in the fact that we’re not having a
class in adult learning theory just to get us going. We actually learn it as
we go along. . ..So this is my bowl of spaghetti and that all gets stirred up
together. To me I look in it and I go I don’t know where to start. And
that’s when I can’t think.

Chris agreed with India and added: “It’s hard when you have so much information. You
kind of ahnost don’t know where to begin.”

As Nard explained, the participants hit a wall because “we spent a lot of time
floundering.” Scarlett also noted: “We got bogged down in a lot of irrelevant details.”

She remarked on how some members were too invested in the problems.

96

When you’re problem-solving you’re trying to get the larger picture, and
trying to figure out where this is and what the other issues are and whether
we’re missing something else and we lost track of the real goal of the
thing...for me at least because like with the first problem it was about an
English teacher who teaches remedial classes and that’s what I do so I got
very connected to the Board and how the Board works and how the
decisions are made and how faculty issues are. I could see all those
details. . .I think other people did that as well.

The groups hit a wall because of interpersonal conflicts. Sophia, 3 European
American female and Janis, an Afiican American female appeared to have a conflict in
which Donald an European American male served as a mediator. Janis’ focus on Sophia
includes the way she critically examined her opinions, her attitude, and Sophia’s inability
to focus. Regarding the way Sophia critically examined her opinions, Janis commented:

I don't know what the situation really is or was. If it was just like a gender
thing you know that we were the same gender. It seemed like [it] was a
problem between me and another female in my group. Sophia seems very
critical of my work. ...it seems like she had more to like prove, like I
have this degree and I have the background. She even stated that I have a
Bachelors’ degree in English. I just got the impression that she had to
prove herself. You know it was like in a way she came off arrogant, very
much so.

Sophia also focused on Janis during the course in terms of her intellectual contributions.

I am convinced that Janis is clueless and that forces me to couch
everything in terms of her cluelessness. I need to give her grace and not be
wonied about the clueless thing. .. Janis doesn’t seem to work as hard.

On the other hand, they pointed out the positive contributions of Donald.
According to Janis, Donald became the mediator between herself and Sophia.

It seemed like [there] was a problem between me and another female
[Sophia] in my group. And then the male [Donald], he seemed like the
mediator in a way. When things started to get hot or heated and not saying
that I didn't never had a feeling of exclusion or kind of like critical
questioning you know at times from him, but he seemed more cool and
relaxed. Once you'd explain it to him, he asked you once more [if] it
doesn't work then he'd ask you again. And you told him what you know
this is what's going on or this is how I feel or why or please scroll back

97

and read the chat because you know it became a pain to have to type

everything that you've expressed all over again. So I would sometimes tell

him to scroll back up, I'm responding to what you had asked me before.

Or you know or what I'm saying is what's stated above, so please scroll

back and read what I stated. But he just seemed like he was the mediator.

So he would kind of keep-he would keep things balanced, cool.

It appeared that the need to shift through the differences as well as all of the
information immobilized or paralyzed the group. They described the feeling: “as hitting
a wall.” The work of collaborative learning among diversity was a daunting task, which
brought feelings of helplessness, confusion, and aimless wandering. Yet, they needed to
complete the work. The next section describes the task of breaking through the wall.

Attempting T 0 Break Through The Wall: Breaking through the wall in order to the
complete the final product was a difficult process. The participants’ descriptions
reflected a continuum of experiences. Some seemed to enjoy the challenge; others
related a medium difficulty level with the challenge; while others elaborated high levels
of difficulty. On the one hand, the attempts to break through the wall were helpful.
Ginger explained: “I have learned a lot more from the things that we’ve looked at than
[by] actually solving the problem.” Others such as Sophia and Janis described successful
attempts. Sophia explained, occasionally “somebody would kind of take charge, which I
think was good. . .like someone would just have the need to go in this direction. . .once we
broke through that wall we all felt a lot better.” Other times, Janis remarked that the
instructor guided them out.

Our professor would let us know, give us a little indications, you sound

like you're on the right path or don't focus so much on this, focus on how

they learn. Or focus on the faculty or focus on the students. So he would

guide us without telling us no, this is how you should think of this and this

[is the] way you solve a problem. It pushed us into the direction.

On the other hand, breaking through the wall was difficult. Janis explained:

98

It’s like we have a problem sitting right before us and we all had the same

information it was just a matter of communicating with one another and

putting together the pieces and researching the pieces to answer a

question. It sounds easy, but it’s hard.
It was hard for the participants to understand fellow group members’ perspectives and to
challenge those perspectives when they did not agree with them. The participants needed
to get to know their groups members so well that they could know when to react and
when to simply listen. Janis elaborated on this issue:

Maybe it has to do with interacting with people. . . getting to know each

other’s backgrounds and stress and weaknesses is important in order to

move forward and answer the question. People have different ways of

approaching problems and you have to get to know the person to realize

that okay that right now so-in-so [is] just really brainstorming. This isn’t

really their answer. They’re not really set on going ahead and answering

this problem so you just have to get on target. It takes a longer time to

complete a task because you have to really communicate and just learn

[about] that person and go through the different phases of communication

you have these members in your group to complete the task and though

it seems easy and you knew the names ...it wasn’t easy to execute.
In other words, as Chris noted: it was like “being in a family. . .you develop a shorthand.”
Group members had to learn to read the other person’s messages. Getting to know one
another was difficult because it took time and group members were not always willing to
make time. Sophia explained that Janis would try to spend time at the beginning of the
group’s chat sessions to find out how everyone was doing. “I appreciated when she
would like care for us, but I kind of was like, let's not waste our time, let's just go.”

The second source of stress associated with attempts to break through the wall
concerned the need to challenge each other’s opinions. Challenging opinions or

disagreeing with others, however, was difficult in an online environment. Sophia recalled

a time when she did not understand J anis’ contribution.

99

I would kind of be like oh, I don't want to alienate this person, but I really
don't understand where they are coming from. And so it was hard for me
to articulate that over the computer, like explain yourself or please fill me
in more. I have no idea what you just meant and without that sounding
defensive or challenging or accusing.

Disagreeing online was difficult because of the missing or limited non-verbal cues.
Nickie noted: “[without] facial expressions [it is] so hard to communicate, how to make
sure they understand me in text.” Janis and Chris elaborated why misinterpretation was
not easy online. Janis commented:

You spent so much energy and time, before you even get with them
online, you would have to think about what is it that you want to say.
There [are] some important things that you know you need to prepare for
before you start chatting. And there's a lot of mental preparation. Physical
as far as like making sure that you've read the material, but mental too
because then it's like okay, I read this material, now I need to apply it. I
need to really bring up this issue that they discussed in the posting because
I don't agree with that. I think that you know, but I need to come across a
way to where I'm not offending them, on what I don't agree with, or that I
agree with them and I really think we should go with what they have
stated. It made me very, very cautious because we were dealing with each
other online. I felt that I could not just say whatever I wanted to

say. . .because it may be interpreted in a way that I don't want it
interpreted.

Chris agreed and recalled a time when she tried to prevent her group members from
jumping to solutions and spend more time discussing the issues. She lamented:

I didn’t want to be rude or come across as being rude online because I
know it’s very easy to do that. Everybody talks about with emails and
messages you don’t know the tone. You have no idea on how to interrupt
the tone. And I didn’t want them to interpret that I’m like this pushy you
know control freak. So I just kind of let the conversation happen ...[If the
meeting were face-to-face,] I probably would’ve said okay you guys, wait
a minute. Let’s go back, let’s go through the lesson questions and you
know take it this route instead of immediately resolving the problem

Scarlett explained that breaking through the wall was difficult: “I don't think

people are willing to challenge points of view.” She recalled a time when the group

100

overrated her opinions. “I had teaching experience. In some ways that was helpfirl but in
some ways whenever I said anything about teaching my viewpoint got overrated. . .I
didn't necessarily want that to happen.” Scarlett wanted her group members to challenge
her comments, but she explained:

Not very many people are comfortable with conflict. . .What happens is

you don't make that progress because what could happen if people are

willing to challenge one another or ask questions or disagree, then you can

create something even better. But if people aren't willing, if they're just

saying oh that sounds fine to me then you don't get very far and the

collaboration really breaks down, if people aren't willing to really

challenge or give feedback. Most people just say yep that's fine with me,

then it's not really collaboration, people are just contributing a piece.

Due to the lack of fill] participation from all if its members and ideological
differences, the members of group two found it difficult to break through the wall.
Scarlett explained that Nickie, an International female, was unable to participate because
of her pregnancy and delivery during the middle of the semester.

Nickie] in the group participates infrequently. [Nickie] had a baby in the

middle of the semester and had a lot of illnesses. She was not able to

participate very much, but I think she could have contributed a lot more

but wasn’t able to.

Matthew had time conflicts because he enrolled in too many courses, did not like
to use technology, and he became ill during the semester. His participation was
also sporadic during the semester. India explained:

He’s a procrastinator and he’s really trying to work on that. I guess he’s

now overscheduled himself. But he hates technology. He wouldn’t even

use email until last year. . .Matthew has been quite but he is sick.

Scarlett and India therefore, contributed more toward the group products, but they did not
have the benefit of all of the group members’ contributions. Interestingly, Nickie and

Matthew were the youngest members —both 25 years old- and Scarlett and India were the

101

eldest — 40 and 55 respectively. The members of this group also experienced difficulty
due ideological differences over the problems. For example, in the first problem,
developmental education, they found it difficult to reach consensus due to India and
Matthew’s opinions regarding the nature of higher education. India commented:

Matthew and I are similar in our concern about the quality of education

and the [fact] that remedial education does not belong in higher education.

It seems strange that you graduate with a diploma, be accepted into [a]

university, but still not have the pre-requisites. All this after taking

Standardized Tests! Having elitist and meritocratic tendencies make us

sound like we are part of a subversive group in higher education because it

is so politically incorrect.

Matthew and India strongly disagreed with collaborative learning approaches. India
remarked: “Matthew and I agree that I think collaborative learning does something to the
quality of learning.”

Scarlett, who was a developmental education teacher, strongly disagreed with
their opinions, but the lack of clear communication made it difficult for them to truly
understand one another. Interestingly, this conversation occurred during a face-to-face
group meeting.

When we were talking about some remedial stuff that those people

shouldn’t be in college. He made some derogatory comments like that. It

was difficult because [Matthew] would I think some of the time, a lot of

the times I just didn’t understand where he was coming from. To me I

wasn’t sure whether he was being sort of sarcastic. I think part of it was

sort of miscommunication.

After hitting the wall and attempting to break through the wall for one problem,
the members often encountered the same issues again. Sophia remarked: “We always
seem to hit this wall with every problem. Like where we just couldn’t go any farther. We
didn’t know where to go with it.” Scarlett explained: “I don’t think we have evolved

enough in becoming good facilitators to trying to connect different points of view.”

102

The participants’ experience with diversity provides additional insights to the
underlying issues associated with ambivalence toward group work. The underlying
emotional anxiety reflects a struggle to move together as a group. The members could
articulate the process of moving together, but the reality of the task was both invigorating
and disheartening. They described a process of encountering the diversity, hitting a wall,
and attempting to break through the wall.

As a result of the multiple sources of tension, the participants developed a number
of coping strategies to deal with the profound anxiety they experienced concerning their
ambivalence with group work and the consensus process. The next section outlines those
strategies, while the third section of this chapter sketches the consequences of those

strategies.

The Coping Strategies

Faced with the requirement to assume a large part of the responsibility for their
learning, the perception of losing aspects of their identity, and the need to move together
as a group, the participants employed a number of strategies to cope with the anxiety and
to complete their work. These coping strategies largely reflected resistance to a
collaborative consensus process. The strategies included: creating surrogate
teachers/leaders, minimizing conflict, forming coalitions, limiting discussion, and
engaging in fantasy. The online environment with its delayed asynchronous
communication, fast paced chat sessions, and reduced physical cues facilitated the use of

these strategies. A discussion of these strategies follows.

103

Surroggte Teachers

To alleviate the tension generated by the complex problems and the non-
traditional role of the teacher, the participants attempted to get the instructor to assume
his traditional role. For example, India wanted Jack to tell her “the correct way to answer
the question.” India explained what she was looking for when she stated; “what the
experts hold true. That is a right answer.” Jack, however, responded by asking her how
her group was approaching the problem. He explained to her, “the group is the expert for
the problem,” and that the group’s approach was “just as valid” as his approach. India
became frustrated and complained:

I could ask him a question but he would respond with three more

questions. He never really got my question answered. Like he never

wanted to be the expert he always would say you know I’m not the expert.

And, to me I think I can buy that to a certain extent, but of course he’s the

expert you know this is his area of concentration.
Nard complained that neither Ginger nor Chris were capable of understanding the issues
within the problems. Even though Jack meet with this group when they requested him to
do so and he also placed numerous comments on their discussion board, Nard thought
that he needed to do more. She protested:

The instructor wasn’t aware that people at least in my group didn’t have

an understanding of what it is we were trying to do. .. I think the

instructor could spend more one-on-one time perhaps [in face-to-face

meetings] with each group. And that way have a better sense of who was

understanding and who was not and then helping to guide the people who

weren’t understanding to additional resources that might be helpful to

them.

When it became evident that Jack would not serve as the traditional authority
figure for the groups, the participants faced the need for the group to assume that role.

They needed to both solve the problems and attend to the needs of others. To resolve this

104

tension, the groups created a surrogate teacher or leader who nrimicked the behavior of a
traditional teacher or leader. Each surrogate teacher or leader seemed to emerge to
resolve a growing situation that arose within his or her respective group. For example,
the members of group three designated Nard as the surrogate teacher for their group to
solve the tension around Chris and Ginger’s perceived inability to understand the issues
within the problem.

While Nard questioned Ginger and Chris’ level of understanding of the issues, the
notes in their journals and their comments in the chat room demonstrated an ability to
understand both the various issues within the problem, as well as the readings. For
example, in problem one, the groups were presented with information about issues that a
developmental education teacher at a community college faced. The groups’ goal was to
determine why adults participate in education, identify the barriers in the problem that
were not aligned with those goals, and then develop a strategy to remove the barriers.
While the group brainstormed, Ginger began to question whether the curriculum was
relevant for the students. She asked: “Does it engage the students? Do they feel like they
can use it? Relevance to their work and lives makes [students] interested.” Comments
like these seem to demonstrate that she did in fact understand some of the issues
embedded in the problem.

In her journal, Chris provided detailed notes on the readings indicating some
level of understanding. Yet, each member of this group verbalized Chris and Ginger’s
inability to understand and contribute to the problem-solving. Nard explained: “There
seemed to be, to me, a lack of depth of understanding of even the problem identification.”

Chris remarked: “I was clueless about the subject matter, completely. I felt like I was like

105

bringing the group down. I found out my other group member [Ginger] was clueless as
well, but she was just trying to fake it.”

Chris and Ginger also described themselves as leaders in other contexts of their
lives. Chris served in a leadership capacity in both her role as a sorority mom and a
program leader. As a sorority mom she advised:

I take care of the house as a whole, as a business. I pay the bills. 1 schedule

maintenance. I make sure the menu is good and the food is on the table... I

live with those women and I have to discipline them to a certain extent

because there are rules and there are reasons for those rules when you live

in a house with 50 women.
In discussing her role as secretary to one of the program areas on a college campus, Chris
stated: “I’m so used to being a secretary and being organized and finding a solution to the
problem.” Ginger also served as a leader in other contexts. “In my life, I have usually
been allocated as the “leader.” Even in my other classes this semester, the leadership role
has been given to me, if not forced upon me.” Nevertheless, both Chris and Ginger
appeared to feel overwhelmed by their roles as leader within areas of their personal and
professional lives. Chris commented further on her job as a sorority mom: “It is the most
difficult job and the most emotional. . .that l have ever had in my entire life.” She
continued:

I can’t handle it anymore. It’s just too stressful for me. Because I do not

only have to worry about my life, my classes, my work, I have to worry

about these 50 women that I live with because the majority of them I’ve

grown to care about and want to help.
Ginger also commented on her role as leader in a group for another class during the same

semester. Only two of the five people in her group were “pulling their weight.” She

advised: “I’ve done my part and done parts of others and it’s been frustrating.”

106

Nard became the surrogate teacher in this group to allow the group to cope with
the tension created by Jack’s refusal to remain in the traditional authority role. With the
group’s perception that Ginger and Chris were unable to grasp the content and problem-
solve, Nard began to mimic the behavior of a traditional instructor. She provided
examples when the others failed to understand. She took charge of the learning
environment, and she became the expert who transmitted information to the other
members. Nard explained:

The faculty member needs to step in and it didn’t happen as well as I think
it needed to happen in this course. I was not fulfilling the instructor’s role,
but at a certain point more of the responsibility of the projects fell on me
like I became the teacher. I think I could offer them examples of things
that I had observed or participated in that may have given them confidence
in an idea or a suggestion. . .I wasn’t willing to submit the material that
they presented as possible for inclusion as it was.

Ginger and Chris turned to Nard because they perceived she could take charge, share
expertise, and help them relieve stress. Chris explained:

She took the bull by the horns and just went with it and we totally
appreciated that. . .We all researched, but Nard, she came up with all the
great ideas. . .Or if we were struggling with an issue, she would work it all
out and it just clicked.

Ginger remarked on her confidence in Nard: “I prefer to have the person that has the most
experience have the leadership role. I have great confidence in her abilities.” Chris
explained the extent of Nard’s expertise.

Nard always knew, she [knew] her content. ..She’s going for a Ph.D., so
she’d been taking classes for longer. ...I mean you can ask her a question
and she immediately knows and can explain it to you in layman’s terms.
She can reference people in other books and stuff, just easy. It’s just
natural to her, it’s very flowing and that was really helpful to have
younger students, one not in education [Ginger], me in education, having
another person in our group who could kind of make it all flow for us.

107

Finally, Nard’s new teaching role seemed to relieve the stress Ginger and Chris
felt regarding leadership in other areas of their life. As noted in the above comment,
Ginger remarked that she had always been allocated or forced to be the leader. In a
separate course that she enrolled in during the current semester, Ginger was the leader of
the group in which only two of the members actively participated. Nard’s surrogate role,
therefore, seemed to provide welcomed relief for Ginger and Chris. According to Ginger,
“It was nice to have Nard take the reins in our group.”

Chris was growing increasingly frustrated with her role as the sorority mom. “It’s
dealing with the 50 different personalities that live in that house and all the crap that
comes along with [it]...I can’t handle it anymore. It’s just too stressful for me.” At the
end of problem two, Chris related one way the sorority interfered with her ability to focus
on this course. “The sorority house is out of control lately and some disciplinary issues
are taking up a lot of my fiee time.” Thus, Nard’s surrogate role relieved her stress in the
group, as well as in her own life.

The other two groups had similar scenarios but different issues. For example,
India arose as the surrogate leader so that the group could produce acceptable papers,
even though Scarlett taught English composition and India described Matthew as a
“flourishing writer.”

Creating surrogates seemed to provide a way to cope with the stress associated
with teaching themselves. The surrogates appeared wise and capable and the other
members appeared clueless in the group. Yet, their stories suggested that the non-

surrogates were competent and leaders in other areas of their lives. The group seemed to

108

play out a drama from which a hero would emerge and rescue them. This hero could
mimic the traditional teacher role for the group.

Nevertheless, Nard complained about her role as surrogate teacher: “I felt put
upon. I felt like I was having to carry more of the project than I should have.” Ginger
began to feel like she was not carrying her weight in the group. “I feel like an albatross in
the group.” Chris also began to feel badly about her role in the group. “I feel like such a
slacker.” The surrogate teachers were created to resolve the tension in the group, but

these roles also generated tension.

Minimizing conflict

Conflict is a naturally occurring event when people work together. The
participants experienced conflict because of the shared teaching and learning
responsibilities, as well as the diverse perspectives. The conflict generated additional
stress that they did not want to endure so they devised strategies to minimize the conflict.
The members of group two voiced concerns over feeling disconnected from the group,
unequal participation and different ideologies. Yet, the members of the groups avoided
full discussion of the underlying interpersonal issues. As Nard explained, they permitted
themselves to be “overrun with civility.”

While Janis and Donald waited for Sophia to join them in the chat room so that
they could conduct their debriefing session regarding problem one, Janis informed
Donald: “1 am thinking about switching groups, to interact with people that are campus
accessible. How do you feel about that?” Donald replied: “I would like for you to stay

with us.” Janis explained why she wanted to leave the group.

109

One thing that I need is to feel more connected though. I would like to

communicate with you both more effectively. Sometimes, I feel like you

both are talking over my head and are not attentive to my concerns or

ideas. I am not trying to slam anyone. I just feel this needs to be

expressed.

Donald responded: “It was rather difficult with you getting on late due to your computer
problems and Sophia and I had already started. I can see why you may have felt left
behind.” Sophia, who arrived in the chat room after the conversation started, also
responded when she was informed of J arris’ impending decision: “I don’t think we
necessarily did a good job of bringing Janis up to speed.” The group, however, did not
discuss the fact that Donald and Sophia felt that Janis was not contributing as much as
she should, the fact that they did not understand her perspective, nor Janis’ perception
that they “were critically questioning her contributions” to the group discussion. Each of
them documented their concerns in their journals, but never openly discussed their
feelings during the semester. Sophia remarked: “we never verbalized it.”

The group minimized the conflict by concentrating only on the issue in fi'ont of
them, Janis’ threat to leave the group, but they failed to enter into what Nard described as
a “justified conflict” when people enter into conversation. This strategy also seemed to
address the threat to J anis’ identity as a group member — as described earlier in relation to
the second issue, voice and identity. The members of this group perceived that Janis
might be justified in her assertions that her identity was threatened, but they addressed it
by minimizing the associated conflict.

In a related issue, India informed her group that Nickie was absent due to issues

related to her new baby. After providing the update, she posted the following message on

the discussion board:

110

From the team perspective I have decided that we are all adults here and

while I have a team responsibility I can only be responsible for my

contribution and it is up to every team member to sort out where they [are]

with this process. I think I tried to do too much the first time.

Matthew, whose participation in this same group was sporadic, failed to keep deadlines
and only intermittently responded to postings from his group members. He had already
apologized for his behavior and had promised to be more attentive to the groups’ needs.
After reading India’s comment, Matthew replied: “perhaps I am interpreting incorrectly,
but I sense there remains some negative feelings regarding my less than predictable
communication fiom the previous problem.” He then urged India and Scarlett to discuss
the issue.

Please I urge you and Scarlett to suspend all diplomacy and present your

true concerns regarding my performance. You have absolutely every right

to do so from past circumstances. I want to do everything in my power to

earn your trust and to restore your confidence in me.

Scarlett responded to Matthew; “I'm not concerned with your lack of attention on
the last problem—I am curious because you don't seem to be having trouble responding a
lot this time.” The discussion ended at this point. The group failed to address Nickie and
Matthew’s lack of full participation, which continued throughout the semester.

As demonstrated in the two stories above, when confronted with perceived
conflict, the participants in this study responded by failing to discuss the underlying
interpersonal issues. Although opportunities existed for the group members to enter into a
fuller discussion of their conflicts, the members chose to minimize the conflict.

Instead of addressing the interpersonal issues such as perceptions of uneven work

contributions, they vented their fi'ustration in their journals, directed their frustration at

the computer, formed coalitions or simply ignored the conflict. For example, Ginger

111

spoke openly in her journal about her feelings of inadequacy and her attempts to please
Nard in her journal: “Chris came over and we put problem three together. . .Probably not
what Nard wants, but oh well. Chris was as clueless as I was about it. . .I felt really dumb.
I feel like such a slacker.” Yet, she never mentioned her feelings to Nard.

Participants such as India and Donald directed their anger at the computer. India
related an incident when the members of her group did not respond to her posting. “I was
about ready to put my foot through the computer. Haven’t you read? I have all the issues
all from my notes were written out.” Donald related a story about the frustration he felt
about Janis’ contributions in a chat session: “I might be sitting there yelling at my
computer and saying that this person isn’t the brightest person...” Janis described how she
became “tired of interacting with her group.” She remarked: “It makes you not want to
turn on your computer. You start to become tired of computers. . . .”

Sophia mused upon J anis’s decision to leave the group. She described the
problem as a miscommunication issue. She and Donald told Janis that they did not
realize she was feeling disconnected from the group. Sophia related the role the
computer played in the miscommunication; “for a while we kind of blamed the computer.
I think that's probably a part of it, that you can’t hear the tone of voice. . . .” Nevertheless,
both Sophia and Donald specifically blamed Janis and they entered these feelings in their
journals. For example, Sophia wrote: “Janis is clueless, which forces me to couch
everything in terms of her cluelessness.”

The participants recognized areas of conflict associated with diversity, such as
unequal participation, leadership, and different perspectives related to the task.

Nevertheless, they minimized the conflict or simply ignored it. Instead, they wrote their

112

true feelings in their journals, blamed the computer, avoided full conversation and
discussed the issues with colleagues outside the group. There was little evidence of firll
discussion of the interpersonal issues amongst them. Yet, these issues persisted

throughout the semester causing increased emotional turmoil for the participants.

Forming Coalitions

Creating coalitions became the third strategy used by group members to resist
working collaboratively and to ease the threat of identity loss. Two members of the group
joined together to commiserate and to relieve the tensions associated with hitting the wall
and trying to break through the walls to get the work done. Moreover, the coalitions
afforded opportunities to work jointly on aspects of the problem and to bond with people
whose thoughts aligned with their own.

Donald and Sophia, who were European Americans, formed a coalition because
they felt they worked well together and thought similarly. They blamed Janis an Afiican
American for the tension because she did not think like them nor did she display the same
work habits. They trusted one another’s contributions to the group. Sophia remarked:

We had several kind of conflicts I would say and it seemed that it ended

up being kind of two against one a lot, which I don't know if that's a

problem of being in a group of three, that you have two people pairing

up. . ..I think some of the tension went back to the two against one kind of

feel. I think that I felt that I was part of the two.

She continued: “I felt that sometimes she wasn't contributing. Often, I [felt] that she had
not done her homework and her ideas were not as valuable. I sensed she’d done just a

little looking around.” Donald remarked:

J arris didn’t make the first couple of chats and forced us to re-organize our
job duties [and] our individual workloads. It changed our bond a bit.

113

Maybe I still see Janis as an outsider and am not able to let her in yet, she
hasn’t proven anything yet either.

The coalition formed by Donald and Sophia permitted the members to proceed around
the wall with a majority vote. As Sophia explained; “often the majority wins out.” .

Chris and Ginger, the youngest members of their group met at Ginger’s home to
provide support to one another while writing the paper. They both felt “clueless” with
regards to the problems and the subject matter content, so they were left to depend upon
Nard. Chris explained: “I went over to Ginger’s house several times and worked on stuff
together or we would call Nard from her [Ginger’s] house or we would email Nard from
her [Ginger’s] house.” Working together seemed to provide a way to have their voice
heard as they commiserated together.

India and Scarlett created an un-acknowledged coalition to get the work done. As
mentioned previously, both Nickie and Matthew — the other members of their group — did
not share an equitable portion of the workload. Scarlett and India therefore contributed
more.

The coalitions were formed to cope with the anxiety of sharing the classroom
authority, hitting the wall, breaking down the wall, and the fear of losing their voice and

their identity.

Limiting Discussion

Participation in collaborative endeavors with diversity required considerable
discussion among members; they exchanged opinions, considered those ideas, hit a wall,
and finally tried to break through the wall. The participants in this study encountered

substantial tension concerning the need to blend their voices and work among diverse

114

perspectives. On a number of occasions they tried to negotiate their differences. For
example, India related a story of a time when she and Scarlett disagreed; “Scarlett did not
like my performance improvement idea but as this is about negotiating and consensus I
did not pursue it.” Yet the threat to their individual identity as well as the looming
presence of the wall remained.

The groups also tried to resolve the tension by engaging in a fourth strategy,
limiting the discussion for the problems. They divided up parts without firlly discussing
the results of individual research; they narrowly defined acceptable discussion
contributions; and they jumped to early solutions. India commented on dividing up the
parts: “we never all had the whole picture. We only had our little separate pieces of the
whole. . .we read about them and wrote about them and then posted it...” Scarlett a
member of India’s group elaborated on this point: “we split up the questions, determined
then who wanted to answer the questions. . .it was a very unproductive way of doing
it. . .it’s not really a collaborative effort, you’re really not discussing.” This group
avoided going through the wall by limiting the discussion. This fourth strategy also
addresses the threat to individual voice because it limits the need to “give up” anything.
Each person was responsible for a piece therefore, each voice was represented as Scarlett
explained.

A second tactic that the participants used to limit the discussion was to set up
unofficial rules to judge which conversation contributions were acceptable. Donald
recalled a time when Jack warned him not to act upon assumption he was making with

problem two, but rather, to make sure he was using research to back up his approach to

115

the problem. Donald went back to the group and tried to banish all assumptions from the
group’s conversation. He explained:

I would try to help them out by pointing out those assumptions that they

were making. I think sometimes this led to frustration for some group

members and they may have thought that they [Janis] were being picked

on. But overall I believed it helped to weed out useless or unwanted
information and forced us as a group to concentrate on the problem at

hand. These had to be looked at critically to determine if they were

assumptions, if they could be supported with research, or if they were

tangential to the actual problem.
Donald became a gatekeeper for the types of acceptable contributions in this group,
which limited the conversation. In this sense, Donald also served as a surrogate teacher
by mimicking the behavior of the teacher. He also preserved his ability to concentrate
only on the facts, which was his learning preference. His group members allowed this
behavior as Sophia noted: “I would say from my perspective that in his life and his work,
he's probably just used to doing this like saying okay, let's do this.” In addition, serving
as gatekeeper allowed Donald to attend to his needs for facts. He stated:

Well [having true facts is important for me] because they’re facts. Not to

sound stupid or anything ...I’m pretty lenient as long as people are able to

justify what they are doing. That’s the big thing. I can tolerate different

answers as long as they can be justified.
Thus, by serving as a gatekeeper, Donald lessened the threat to his identity and the
tension associated with non-traditional teaching.

A third approach was to move quickly to problem resolution before they teased
out all of the issues. Chris explained: “we skipped immediately to the problem solution;
we didn’t discuss the questions enough.” Skipping to immediate solutions also served to

limit discussion, ease the tension associated with compromise, threats to their identity,

and the overwhelming feeling of hitting the wall.

116

As demonstrated throughout this fourth strategy, tactics such as limiting the
discussion appear as attempts to minimize the threat to the participant’s identity, permit
the members to go around the looming wall, as well as address their need for traditional
instruction. A closely related but distinctive coping strategy concerns engaging in

fantasy.

Engaging in Fantasy

An analysis of all of the strategies reflects fantasies. It is as the group members
said to themselves, “if only” we create surrogates, minimize the conflict, form coalitions,
or limit the discussion, we can alleviate the tensions and my identity or voice will remain
safe. Yet, there were occasions when the participants’ flights of fantasy became a fifth
strategy. They fantasized that the tension would be relieved if only they could pick their
own group members, switch groups, engage with others in the class, or meet face-to-face.

India described how switching groups would have been helpful because group
work was frustrating when she could not “chose group members.” It appeared that India
was engaged in the fantasy of: “If only” I could choose my group members, then the
tensions over diversity, and uneven participation created by different motivational levels
would dissipate. She explained: “it’s a very unequal balance of work when you do not
choose your partners.” She continued: “I would like to [have] had the freedom to find
people who I could’ve worked with. .. I [would] choose somebody I got along with.”

In a previous example, Janis described why she wanted to switch groups. Her
story reflected the same fantasy of, “if only” she could switch groups the conflict would

ease and her identity (voice) would be preserved.

117

I wanted it to be a very good working environment and I didn’t want a

conflict to get out of line with them and feel excluded. . .and I didn’t want

to feel intimidated by my group members to where they silenced my

voice. So that’s where the struggle was and that’s my fight to get my

voice heard.

Her story suggests that another group would have been a “good” working environment.
In discussing the way she would design her ideal online course, Sophia noted: “I think I
would probably like maybe change the group once or so in a semester.” India explained:
“Some of it is laborious. . .because we have not even been able to change teams.”

Nard elaborated on the need to engage with others within the class: “I never got
to see the whole, I always felt as if I were seeing a partial picture of the class. . .it felt
incomplete.” Thus “if only” she could work with other members of the class, her
learning would be complete. That is, she should have been allowed to learn from the
other class members outside her group. Nard seemed to de-value her conversations with
other members of the course on the lobby discussion boards as well as when she
participated in the lobby chat rooms. According to Nard, her group members Ginger and
Chris did not have a “depth of understanding of even the problem identification.” She
imagined that talking to others might help. “I know from hearing from other people who
were in the class who felt the same way.”

Finally, almost all of the members fantasized about how meeting face-to-face
might solve the tension. Janis explained: “face-to-face is easier because even if you can't
meet with all the group members, if enough of you often get together you can accomplish

a task.” Chris agreed and added; “when you’re in a face-to-face group you have the

attention personally, physically. . .you may have a like a piece of paper and a pen in front

118

of you. You can write down notes.” The participants who met face-to-face wanted to do
so more often.

The members engaged in fantasy or “if only” dreams that they c6uld alleviate the
tension through the first four strategies while also engaging in additional fantasies. They
fantasized that the tension would be relieved “if only” they could pick their own group
members, switch groups, engage with others in the class, or meet face-to-face.

In summary, the section on the issues the participants faced demonstrated that the
learners in this study developed ambivalence due to the lack of traditional teaching, the
perception that they would lose their unique individuality, and the need to move together
as a group. The group members employed a number of coping strategies to relieve those
tensions and complete their work. Descriptions of those strategies largely reflect
resistance to collaborative learning and group work such as creating surrogate
teachers/leaders, minimizing conflict, forming coalitions, limiting discussion, and
engaging in fantasy. The computer served both as a receptacle for their tension as well as
a barrier that allowed them to voice the tension without becoming engaged in conflict.
The following and final part of this chapter, the cross case analysis, presents a discussion

of the consequences of the coping strategies.

The Consequences of the Coping Strategies
The participants encountered tension around three underlying sources: 1) the
need to share a large part of the responsibility for their learning, 2) the fear that they
would lose aspects of their identity when they fully integrated into the group, and 3) the

need to move together as a diverse group. They engaged in several defensive and

119

resistant strategies such as creating surrogate teachers, minimizing their conflict, limiting
discussion, forming coalitions, and engaging in fantasy. In the final part of this chapter,
the participants’ stories revealed that the strategies not only failed to provide the relief
they sought, but that the strategies they chose also contributed to high levels of emotional
stress. The coping strategies created an unsafe group environment in which certain
members were de-authorized. The strategies resulted in negative feelings and emotions

because of the participants’ perceptions of unequal workloads.

Unsafe Spaces

The group setting became a place where certain members were authorized and
others were not. For example, Nard, India, and Donald, the eldest members of the groups
and the ones who were perceived as having the most experience became the surrogate
teacher or leader for the group. In this way, they were perceived as the most influential
members of the group. They used these roles to shape the direction of the group even
though their group members were not comfortable with their direction. For example,
India, who was very opposed to group work and collaboration in general, shaped the
approach to the problem. As she explained:

Give me the problem, give me a timefiame. Say okay India, here’s the

problem. I’m going to give you two weeks to research this, to come up

with an outline with your ideas and I’ll do that. Along the way, I will go

and ask people. I will collaborate from the inside out. I will gather my

information. I might come to you [the other group members] and bounce it

off [them]. I might say what do you think about this? But basically I have

control. It’s about control.

Other members of the group such as Scarlett did not think this was a good way to work.

She explained:

120

I would have liked to have had a long... discussion of all the issues on the

discussion board or in the chat to talk about each question and to talk

about the problem in general overall, instead of looking at your own little

piece, which is what happened.

The surrogates along with the other coping strategies created a situation which de-
authorized the younger members of the group, those with the least experience or
educational background, members with a different language, a different race, certain
females members, and the participants who appeared to be more tolerant of collaborative
learning and group work.

Chris initially expressed elation over Nard’s abilities: “That [her expertise] was
really helpful to younger students, ones not in education [Ginger, a management major],
and me in education. ” Nevertheless, both Chris and Ginger commented on the need to
satisfy Nard as the surrogate teacher. Ginger elaborated in her journal: “I spent the day
. .. doing research. . .found more good stuff, but I still have no idea what Nard
wants...probably not what Nard wants but oh well.”

Nickie, an International student who had a number of personal problems including
having a baby during the semester became totally dependent upon the group for direction.
“Due to the time of my delivery I lost track of time and organization. . .I took refuge in
my teammates and followed their leads.” India, who had a number of classes with Nickie
in the past and developed a special relationship with her, served as a mediator between
Nickie and the group when Nickie was not present. India described her relationship with
Nickie: “I love this person. . .I’m kind of like the mother figure for her. I don’t want the
role, but what am I going to do?” Nickie was given lesser responsibilities within the

group. For example, during problem one, the other members were assigned to examine

the guiding questions, while Nickie was assigned to bring back demographic information

121

to the group. While the group clearly tried to accommodate Nickie because of her
personal problems, her voice was often silenced and thus de-authorized.

Janis, an African American in a group with a European American female and
male often felt excluded due to her race, the fact that her perspectives on the problems
were not valued, her educational and work background were de-valued, and her group
members engaged in conversations that excluded her. As Janis described:

I would just feel like because racially I felt like I was being [excluded]. I
really hate to go into the whole race thing, but it's real. But because both
of my group members were White and you know I'm not. And it just
seems like they talk the same language, where I didn't talk the same. I'm
just going to say I think where the problems may have lied, was the fact
that he was a White male and she's a White female.

Sophia agreed with Janis and commented:

I would say that the whole issue of diversity in our group both with respect
to race and gender, I feel that was an underlying issue that never really got
brought up. Like everything that I talked about I think could be read
through those lenses.

J arris’ perspectives on the problems were not valued until the end of the course.
Sophia admitted:

Often, I [felt] that she had not done her homework and her ideas are not as
valuable. . .And at times, I would be like she's not doing anything or she's
saying isn't really grounded in research or whatever. It's just her hunch.
But in the end, I feel like I learned that what she was offering was just as
valid as I was offering, but it was different and we needed that

perspective.

Moreover, Donald and Sophia questioned the value of her job experience and educational
background. J arris explained:

The fact that they [Sophia and Donald] were educators, you know teachers
and they had the teaching experience where I didn't. So it's like well you
know we've read your bio that you posted more or less and I don't know
why you think that because you don't even have an experience in
education like we do. So that's the feelings I would get. You know so I

122

have this feeling of exclusion. . .I'd begin to feel like because of my lack of
education, my feelings and opinions weren't as valued.

Donald commented on Janis’ educational background.

I don’t know if everybody in class [Janis] has an educational type of
background maybe to understand some of the administrative or
educational methodologies that may or may not be involved. I think that’s
just my own personal feeling. Well this is a problem that I have. You
know I look at the health education administration and I’m thinking of
people who are actually teachers [Donald and Sophia were teachers]. And
I find that there aren’t many people who are actually teaching in the
classroom, they are more running types of programs and that type of thing
[Janis was an administrator who ran programs]. I don’t know since we’re
dealing with an educational type problem, if people are familiar with
maybe some of the educational backgrounds and things that may or may
not be helpful in solving this problem. I think there is definitely some
context outside of the classroom. But also too, I think that some of the
stuff is context within the classroom that having some background
information may be helpful. It’s kind of like this problem #3 that we’re
working on. We have people that are very knowledgeable but it isn’t what
they do but they don’t know how to teach and present that information
[Janis]. I think it’s the same type of thing.

Finally, Janis complained that her group members engaged in conversations,
which did not include her. She explained: “they were talking over my head.”
Sophia also explained what happened.

I think the guy and I would read all the chats that the class had had and
were involved in that and really tried to keep up. So we would start talking
about something that had been mentioned in a chat and she [Janis] would
be like I don't know what you're talking about. What is this from? And we
were like did you read the chat archives and you know she would be like
well no, I haven't had time. And then our tendency I think was just to be
like well this is what it was, just kind of quick go through it rather than
stopping and taking the time to explain because we were so pressed for
time.

Other participants were also de-authorized due to their work experience and
educational background. Chris and Ginger, voluntarily gave up their right to participate

equally in the decision making by providing more credibility to Nard due to her 20 years

123

of experience in education. Scarlett commented on the ways in which her group did not
challenge her opinion because of her experience as a teacher in a community college.

Donald, the only male member of his group, was perceived as the most influential
because of his ability to give direction and his maturity. He used his position to keep the
group on track, to avoid assumptions, and to stick to the facts. Sophia described him as
“task-oriented.” She, however, described herself as a “relational learner. I learn with
others if I know a bit about them, their lives, their passions.” As demonstrated in a
previous example Sophia however, criticized Janis for her attempts to bond in the
beginning of the chat conversations. Instead, she identified with Donald. She
commented on how she felt:

I kind of lashed onto that aspect of his [Donald’s] personality, I appreciated when

she [Janis] would like care for us, but I kind of was like let's not waste our time,

let's just go. I don't know, I feel bad about that.
Sophia, who described herself as a relational learner, like many others females in society,
was de-authorized as she adopted a male orientation to learning.

Even though their voices were the “loudest,” Nard, India, and Donald described
previous small their group work experiences in less favorable ways, as compared to the
other group members. Nard, for example, commented that working in small groups was
like “herding cats, because they don’t always move in directions that you would expect or
anticipate and not everybody chooses the same path.” Both Donald and India described it
as “pulling teeth.” The other members of their group used more favorable terms. For
example, Nickie described working in small groups as “building a building fiom scratch

because we start with nothing and then build our work.” Janice commented: “It is very

intimate.”

124

The strategies that were intended to provide relief from the tension not only failed
to alleviate the tension, but also created unsafe spaces where the members of society who
are traditionally marginalized (e.g., younger members, those with less experience, those
with lower academic standing, those of a different race, and certain females) were de-

authorized.

Perceptionp Of Uneven Wor_kl_oa_d_s

The strategies generated perceptions of disproportionate workloads within the
groups. The surrogates, who emerged to reduce the tension regarding the absence of
traditional teaching, complained that the other members were not making equitable
contributions to the group. The other members of the group complained that they felt
helpless. For example, Nard complained: “I felt put upon. I felt like I was having to carry
more of the project than I should have.” Chris felt like a “slacker” and Ginger felt like an
“albatross for the group.” They did not feel they were making sufficient contributions.
Interestingly, the perception of unequal participation was the chief complaint that Chris,
Ginger, and Nard had about their previous experiences with small groups.

Donald and Sophia’s perceptions of what counted as valuable discussion
contributions led to perceptions that J anis was not “doing her homework.” Sophia
explained:

I think that I have this kind of perspective that you've got to do all this

research and it needs to be like a certain way and everybody should just

follow the pattern and do it as assigned and have tons of sources or

whatever.

Since Janis did not study and present information in the same way as Sophia, she

concluded that Janis was not doing her homework.

125

The strategies used by the groups to reduce the workload resulted in a narrow
focus on the tasks, with only scant attention to the interpersonal issues. These resistant or
defensive strategies included creating surrogate teacher/leaders, avoiding conflict,
limiting discussion, and engaging in fantasy. Yet, these strategies not only failed to
reduce the tension, but also created additional emotional issues in the group such as

unsafe spaces and perceptions of unequal work among group members.

Glimmers of Hope
Despite the fundamental ambivalence the participants experienced, the
participants noted positive learning outcomes, as well glimmers of growth regarding

themselves as learners and group members.

Learning Outcomes

Each of the participants in this study earned a 4.0 grade on a scale of 1.0 — 4.0. In
addition to an excellent grade a number of the participants noted positive learning
outcomes as a result of the course as well as the course content. A few like Sophia

remarked that she learned more in this online course than she had in face-to-face courses.

One thing that I’ve been thinking about a lot is did I learn more in this
class than I have in a face-to-face class? Even though I didn’t always like
the on-line, in the end did I actually end up learning more? And I kind of
feel sometimes like I did. Like I feel sometimes like the stuff that I did in
this class is more a part of me or I can remember it better or something,
than some of the stuff where I just read, go to class and talk about it. As
far as just the topic of content, I feel like I learned a lot and as far as being
able to create something that actually applies to my work setting like all
these papers that we write for class [face-to-face] don’t always fit in the
work that I’m going into? And this class, these projects I could envision
myself actually having to do something like this in my job, so I think I
learned how to better write that kind of stuff. So I guess that’s kind of [it] I
learned a lot.

126

A number of participants noted that they benefited from the course design. India, who
prefers learning situations in which there are right and wrong answers and opportunities
for independent learning described what she learned as she probed into the theory while
solving the problems.

I discovered that it is such a mishmash of theory and there is no one part
that you can really see. It appears that no group of learning theories or
strategies successfully explains how adults learn. What is clearer to

me. . .as we have probed deeper into adult learning, is that the process of
learning has a multi-faceted and imprecise nature, which makes it
extremely difficult to take a view one is wholly comfortable with. This is
it. It’s like a light goes off because it’s like a rrrishmash of ideas.

Other participants noted the benefit of the contextualized nature of the course design.
Nard commented on how she learned because of the contextualized nature of the course
design.

[This class] was helpful to me in that it delved into more learning theory
than I had previously been exposed to and it also offered a case study
approach that I thought was interesting in that it dealt with real life
situations and issues that I could more clearly relate those theories to.

A few even remarked, that despite the difficulty in the course they learned about adult
learning theories. For example, Chris felt she would be able to use the information she
learned in her real life work settings. She explained:

As difficult as this class was for me — due to the new and intense
introduction of the learning theories —I feel like I have learned a lot. One
thing I did not include in my capstone project was the fact that the content
of the course will definitely help me with my future relationships with
students. If I am to become an academic advisor or a part-time adjunct
faculty member at a community college, then all of the material presented
in this class can only help me to be successful and further my career. The
concepts used to help teach adult learners can be applied. My relationship
with my students will benefit from the application of several of these adult
learning theories. I’m anxious to be able to apply some of what I’ve
learned to my work environment.

127

Donald also commented on the contextualized nature of the course content. He noted that
it helped him in his practice as well as afforded him opportunities to make sense of his
life experiences.

I’m learning stuff that I’m able to apply stuff in my own practice in an
educational type of setting, which is what I wanted to do. So I’m happy
with that. I can see the concepts and I can see the theory and research
behind everything. But also too, I’m able to apply it so it’s not you know

a or “b”, I can-“a”, being research and “b”, being application. I’m able
to mix the two and actually see it working in a real life situation.

Nickie noted how she learned fiom the course design.

PBL helped me to look at content carefully [and] do research for solving
the problem. They examined for key issues, [and] then did the research.
This helped to resolve the problem. Solving the problem it motivated me
to work more. If I encounter the same problem, I know how to work to
solve it.

Scarlett benefited by being a part of a consensus group. She even shared that information
with her group regarding her own students’ experiences.

But I think the biggest thing is I now understand when my students
complain about small group work, I mean I realize[d] this semester that I
had never worked in class in a group. When I was in school there was no
group work not really I don’t think at all. I had never before written a
group paper. I had written group documents you know at work I had
written documents, but it was not like this. I have learned a lot and have
been able to share.

J arris remarked how she learned because of both the instructor as well as the course
design.

He really has some really great materials for adult theory you know. I
mean it was just a very good class. I really felt like I learned with him
more so then I think any professor I’ve had. Yeah, so I was like that would
be my yeah that would be like my number one professor. He was my best
professor. It’s not because I got a good grade. He really made us work and
I really felt good about what I had done. And I knew what kind of
information [and] knowledge I gained from being in his class.

128

Learning was a gradual process for participants such as India and Ginger. In India’s
debriefing paper, she revealed how she began to accept social-cultural theories.

What I have also realized is the importance of the social constructivist
view in the creation of knowledge. This is described by Candy (1991)
where becoming knowledgeable “. . .irrvolves acquiring the symbolic
meaning structures appropriate to one’s society...” and this adds to the
general pool of knowledge. He continues by discussing teaching and
learning for adults as a process of negotiation or meaning.

Ginger noted the way her thinking about adult learning theories progressed during
the course.

Going through my journal was interesting as well, seeing my process as an

adult learner. Adult learning is more complex than I ever thought it was. I

kind of thought everybody learned in the same-yeah, yeah, it’s hard to

explain. I didn’t think that everybody learned in the same way, I knew it

was a progression, I couldn’t put into concrete thoughts that you know

yes, there are theories that adults learn differently than children, and the

reasons why they learn differently. I couldn’t put those into words. I was

very apprehensive in the beginning. I didn’t know how it was going to

work.

In summation, despite the challenges the learners faced with regard to the
consensus collaborative learning process in the PBL designed course, they all gained
excellent grades and they noted many positive leaning outcomes that matched the
instructors goals for the course. The instructor designed the course with the intend to
provided opportrmities to allow the learners to master the subject matter content as well

learn more about themselves as learners within the group setting. The next section

describes what the participants learned about themselves during the group process.

129

Glimmers of Growth

A few described changes in their perceptions of themselves as learners and group
members. In other words, they renegotiated their perceptions about their group
experience, their group members, and what it meant to be a group member. Members of
groups one and two described changes that resulted from their experiences in the course.
These changes included the ability to renegotiate their approach to the problem, their
assumptions about group work, their perceptions of group contributions, and various
aspects of themselves. During problem three, Scarlett became the facilitator and
renegotiated the approach to the problem. India explained:

The third problem, the other team member [Scarlett] who has stepped up

now for the facilitator said we’re going to do something different. It’s too

fragmented the way we were doing it before. This is how we’re going to

do it. . . .So we’ve got a more global perspective this time as to how we’re

going to do it. We have all looked at the guiding questions and we’re all

posting our comments.
Under Scarlett’s direction, the group engaged in more discussions, which resulted in a
more satisfactory experience. India admitted: “I was more comfortable with that because
I could leaf around it and get an idea of the whole.” Throughout the semester, India was
very vocal about her aversion to group work. In addition to feeling more comfortable
with the new approach, India changed her assumptions about group work.

In a way I have grown it’s challenged me all different ways. I mean

regardless of whether I like this; it’s still challenged me to think. I can

think more logically. It’s challenged assumptions about teaching and

learning.
In other words, this group dropped the strategies of limiting the conversation and

depending upon a surrogate. They entered into more engaging conversations and

produced positive results.

130

Janis became the facilitator for problem three, which appeared to result in
significant changes for the group. Sophia noted:

There were times that I think she, especially the one that she facilitated

toward the end, where she was more able to say this is what I think we

should look at. And I think in the end that she was influential in my

learning about group process.
Both Donald and Sophia began to change their perceptions of Janis’ contributions to the
group. Throughout the semester Donald remarked that Janis was making “useless
assumptions.” During problem three he remarked, “I know that I have complained about
Janis but it’s not for her lack of work. I guess it’s more how she sees the problems.”
Throughout the semester, Sophia described Janis’ contributions as “not valuable” and she
labeled Janis as “clueless.” Yet, during problem three, Sophia began to renegotiate her
perceptions of Janis. She annotated: “in the end I feel like I learned that what she was
offering was just as valid as I was offering but it was different and we needed that
perspective.” Sophia also described J arris’ influence on her own learning:

I guess just by her presence of being there and the things that she did say

that I was like I don't know where that's coming from. I think that really
helps me to see my own weaknesses and what my expectations were. I
think I learned a lot about just being more open to talking things out when
conflict does arise and how each perspective is important. . .not silence any
of the perspectives, but to really listen and to look at it from those
different angles.

Participants such as Scarlett, Sophia, and Janis noted the changes in themselves.
As one example, Scarlett discussed her previous dislike of graduate learners:

I have not liked graduate students and after getting my Master’s and

teaching over 17 years, I have not liked the graduate students that I have

bumped into over the years at conferences. So many of them have grand

theoretical ideas with big vocabularies and verbose monologues, but with

little or no teaching experience.

Nevertheless, during this course she seemed to renegotiate her feelings.

131

But again, I am tired of not having enough background knowledge (which
certainly the APA [a particular writing style] require), not having enough
expertise, surviving as a teacher with my enthusiasm and my insight, but
afraid if I weigh myself down with theories and information that I will
lose the things I am most good at.

She therefore concluded: “So while I want things to be broader, more interdisciplinary, I
am also tired of being superficial.”

Janis who entered the course with a “fear of working with people [that she did
not] know” concluded; “I've been able to face a fear of working with people that I don't
know and don't really understand where they're coming from in a way — now to where I
feel like I could you know work with just about anyone.” Sophia explained the change
process that was occurring in her:

I thought you know we're trying to convince each other. We all come in
with our research and we feel like we have this chat time to say look what
I found, we need to use this in our paper. Whereas we weren't really
saying what did you find? How could we incorporate that or tell me about
that, help me understand what it is that you found. We kind of just [in] this
time crunch we felt we had to convince. We were just impatient.

I think I often expect others to do [the] convincing and I do that myself as
a good listener, but now I'm not so sure. I think I listen well in the one-on-
one, but in groups, I feel a pressure to assert myself and state a valuable
opinion. This assumption of mine has been challenged, and I feel myself
changing in group settings.

Interestingly, the third group with the least salient diversity — all the members
were European American females - did not share the same noticeable types of growth
during the semester. Nard reflected upon the process in her journal:

Does it fit nicely into my schedule? No. Does it force me to reconnect

around material; to evaluate and reconsider material; to reformulate my

thinking and then reformulate my thinking again? YES. Does it require

me to use my facilitation skills in a new and challenging environment?
YES. Am I a better person for the experience? YES.

132

Yet, she failed recognize her role in the group conflict. The members of group three,
Nard, Ginger, and Chris did not recognize how aspects of their own personality
contributed to their group experience like the members of group one and two. In other
words, none of the members of this group admitted that the part of their stress might lie
within themselves. Interestingly, the members of this group met outside of the online
environment more often; they used telephone conference calls at least twice during each
problem-solving process. The other two groups had a person of color, both male and
female members, and used the online environment more than the members of group
three.

The group members adopted several strategies to cope with the tensions
concerning the need to share classroom authority, the fear of losing aspects of themselves
within the group, as well as the need to work with diversity. The strategies, however, not
only failed to relieve the tension, but the strategies generated additional sources of
emotional anxiety. The results of the strategies were unsafe spaces where traditionally
marginalized group members were de-authorized and there were perceptions of
inequitable work contributions.

Nevertheless, when the group was able to let go of their defensive and resistant
strategies and more fully engage in the process, they experienced more favorable results.
Interestingly, description of these types of changes seemed to correspond to the times

they were solving problem three.

133

Chapter Summary

The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of learners’
perceptions of their experiences with collaborative learning approaches that utilize small
online groups, the issues learners faced, and the ways in which learners negotiated those
issues in an online context. The cross case analysis demonstrated that overall, the
participants experienced a fundamental ambivalence toward group work. They valued
many aspects of group work including the opportunities to be actively involved in the
learning process, to share their ideas with others, to be seen and heard by others, and to
share the workload. On the other hand, they resented the tensions created by the need to
reach consensus. The perceptions of their experiences with group work suggest
fluctuating emotional love/hate cycles with the process. These iterative cycles revealed
recurring patterns of enjoyment, punctuated with moments of petulance with the group
process.

The participants faced three issues or underlying sources of ambivalence, (l)
absence of a teacher to provide traditional instruction, (2) a perceived threat to their sense
of voice, and (3) the uncertainty of working across difference. The presence of messy
complex ill-structured problems and the absence of traditional instruction on the subject
content were both empowering and overwhelming for the participants. Many felt that
they could have benefited from at least one lecture on the subject content. The need to
become teacher to one another required them to relinquish their beliefs about teaching
and learning, trust their group members, and accept responsibility for their group

members’ learning, which they were quite reluctant to do.

134

The central tension with regard to the perceived threat to their individuality
reflects a fear that they would lose their voice and thus their identity. Despite the fact that
the participants in this study welcomed the opportunity to be heard and involved in the
group, they needed to hold on tightly to their individual sense of identity. The tension
reflects the fundamental struggle between the participants as individuals and the group-
as-a-whole.

The participants’ experience with diversity provides additional insights to
the underlying issues associated with ambivalence toward group work. The
underlying emotional anxiety reflects a struggle to move together as a group. The
members could articulate the process of moving together, but the reality of the
task was both invigorating and disheartening. They described a process of
encountering the diversity, hitting a wall, and then attempting to break through the
wall.

This tension along with the subsequent coping strategies took time away from
the learning task. The strategies reflect a resistance to collaborative learning, instead, the
participants focused narrowly on the work task while avoiding the interpersonal issues.
These strategies included creating surrogate teachers, minimizing the conflict, limiting
discussion, fornring coalitions, and engaging in fantasy. The online environment with its
delayed asynchronous communication, fast paced chat sessions, and limited physical cues
facilitated the use of these strategies. The consequences of the coping strategies included
creating unsafe group environments in which some members were authorized while
others were de-authorized, and the participants developed perceptions that their group

members were not making equitable contributions to the group. These strategies

135

however, not only failed to alleviate the tensions, but also served to produce additional
sources of emotional tension for the group members, which took additional time away
from the learning task.

Nevertheless, each of the participants received an excellent grade and described
positive learning outcomes as a result of the course content or the course design. A
number of the participants, especially those in groups one and two were able to
renegotiate their thinking about group work and aspects of themselves. Despite the highly
charged emotional setting, a number of participants were able to renegotiate the issues
and they began to see opportunities for personal growth. That is, they began to
experience some of the advantages of consensus collaboration including personal growth

and development.

136

CHAPTER SIX

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The literature on small collaborative groups in online courses reveals that these
approaches to learning are largely based on speculative and theoretical assumptions about
the advantages of learning in these contexts (Bernard et al., 2000; Bullen, 1997).
Moreover, we know little about the reality of working within small collaborative online
groups. The literature focuses on the cognitive and communication technologies designed
to support the collaborative process. These bodies of literature minimize the ways in
which the intrapsychic and interpersonal dynamics shape learners’ perceptions of the
meaning and significance of what they learn (Dirkx & Deems, 1994). Moreover, these
studies often overlook the tensions between the group and the individual (Bennis &
Shepard, 1956; Smith & Berg, 1987) and the unique psychodynamic relationships
between the learner and the computer (Reeves & Nash, 1996). These issues are well
documented in face-to-face groups, but are largely ignored in online courses. In other
words, we know about the theoretical advantages of collaborative learning but less about
the reality of learning in these contexts.

The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of learners’
perceptions of their experiences with collaborative learning approaches that utilize small
online groups, the issues learners faced, and the ways in which learners negotiated those
issues in an online context. This study therefore, provides additional insights into the
emotional nature of small collaborative online groups. These emotional dynamics

include the tensions between the group and the individual, the possibilities for

137

individuation, and the psychodynamic relationship between the computer and the learner.
The findings of this study suggest that online group work represents a location in which
members re-work their sense of self as a learner and as a group member. This process is
influenced by (a) the group transformation, (b) the human computer interaction, (c)
individual transformation, and (d) the socio-cultural processes associated with consensus
problem-based learning.

This chapter is divided into three parts: the interpretation of the findings, the

practical implications of the findings, and the recommendations for future research.

Interpretation of The Findings

F our lenses are insightfirl in terms of the learners’ experiences in the small
collaborative online groups, the experiences the learners faced, and the ways in which the
learners negotiated the issues: (1) group transformation, (2) the human—computer
interaction, (3) individual transformation, and (4) the socio-cultural processes of
consensus and problem-based learning. Each of these lenses are discussed in more detail

below.

Group Transformation

This study of online groups demonstrated dynamics and processes that are
characteristic of the process of individuation (Gibbard, 1974) in face-to-face groups. The
process was marked by alternating swings between fears of fusion with the group and

fears of alienation from the group, with subsequent differentiation of individual members

138

fiom the group-as-a-whole, as well as the establishment of effective interpersonal
relationships between individual members and the group.

Fears of alienation and fusion are the two extreme ends of a continuum. These
concepts represents fears that group members hold regarding their relationship with other
members of the group and the group-as-a-whole (group). The alienation side of the
continuum represents perceived relationships in which the individual group member is
completely isolated and estranged from the group and his or her fellow group members.
The fusion side represents perceived relationships in which the individual group
members’ identity merges completely with the group and their group members, and they
lose a sense of who they are as an individual member. Group development might be
conceptualized as a pendulum that swings back and forth between these two extremes.
Within this space, group members gradually become more of who they are and their
perceptions are increasingly grounded in reality and less in fantasy and projection.

The participants entered the group as individuals but, in the initial stages of the
group, they sought to blend into the group so that they would not stand out and risk
rejection or estrangement. As the groups continued to meet, however, the members
perceived another risk. By avoiding the possibility of standing out in the group, they
risked not being heard. That is, participants perceived that the group had the potential to
suffocate them and obliterate their identity. They experienced a fear of fusion with the
group (Gibbard, 1974). These conflicting emotions caused them to pull away from the
group and seek independence. They wanted to preserve their individual uniqueness. As
they insisted on the individual and unique aspects of their membership, however, the

process evoked fears of alienation, of being disconnected and excluded from the group.

139

This process of individuation played out around three primary sources or issues within
the groups: (1) absence of a teacher to provide traditional instruction, (2) a perceived
threat to their sense of voice, and (3) the uncertainty of how to work across difference.

These alternating fears of fusion and alienation created a profound sense of
ambivalence and anxiety among group members. To manage this ambivalence and its
associated anxiety, the participants adopted several coping strategies. These strategies
largely asserted the individuality of the group members and were designed to ward off
fears of fusion with the group. The strategies fostered gradual differentiation of members
in the group and the elaboration of symbolic roles. These symbolic roles included
characters such as surrogate teachers who served as the leaders, helpless or clueless group
members who followed the surrogate teachers, and influential members to lead the group
out of conflict.

The differentiation of members also crystallized the recognition of difference
among group members. In addition to coping strategies, this recognition of the multiple
ways in which the members differed from one another, served to further distance the
participants from the group and their fellow group members. While it protected them
fi'om fears associated with fusion into the group, the role differentiation and elaboration
of influential group members contributed to increased feelings of alienation and isolation.
This period of emphasis on individuality of group members more or less persisted
through the completion of the group written products.

After completing the project, the participants entered into a reflective period in
which they assessed their cognitive and group development processes. Interestingly, the

participants resonated with both the problems they were asked to resolve, as well as the

140

adult learning theories that informed their examination of the problems. In other words,
they studied themselves as adult learners and as current or future educational
administrators. A number of the participants commented that their small groups were a
microcosm of the problems they solved. Reflection on the course content (problems and
adult learning theories) and the group process generated feelings of accomplishment and
relief that the group was capable of doing the work. The participants seemed to
anticipate the benefits they would derive fiom being a group member. Therefore, they
drew closer to the group again. The participants began to feel safe again in the context of
the group.

The reflections and debriefmgs following each problem created positive group
conditions that seemed to linger as groups began the next problem. Nevertheless, the
cycle continued and as group members drew closer to the group, it generated the same
ambivalent feelings that caused them to seek independence fiom the group in the first
place. In moving toward the group, they experienced the threat to their own sense of
identity and individuality. Thus, fears of fusion again forced the participants to withdraw
from the group and to separate themselves from the feeling of engulfrnent as they worked
on the next problem. This back and forth movement between the fears of fusion and
alienation repeated itself during each problem-solving process.

Through this cyclical process, the group should gradually individuate (Boyd,
1991; Gibbard, 1974). According to both Boyd and Gibbard, the members of the group
will eventually engage in less role-playing and begin to act more out of an authentic
sense of himself or herself as a group member. Fears of alienation and fusion should

gradually decline and, as the group matures, these fears play less and less of a role over

141

time. As this process occurs over time, groups generally become more effective and
productive.

Two primary processes characterized the individuation process for the groups in
this study: 1) role differentiation and 2) the elaboration of influential group members or
symbolic roles. When participants first entered the group, they wanted to initially
cooperate; they did not want to stand apart fi'om their fellow group members. This polite
stage of the group gradually evoked increasing fears of fusion, and the groups then
moved to ward off these growing fears. They did this by gradually differentiating roles
for the group members. Gibbard (1974) asserts that role differentiation is the process by
which groups symbolically assigns roles (such as surrogate teacher) to its members to
facilitate its own individuation process or identity development. Chris remarked: “Nard
always knew, she knows her content. . . She’s going for a Ph.D. ...1 mean you can ask her
a question and she immediately knows and can explain it to you in layman’s terms.”
Regarding her own role, Chris commented: “I was totally clueless about the subject
matter.” Nard and Chris appear to act out symbolic roles for the group to cope with their
need for a teacher.

A second way that groups foster individuation is through the influential group
member (Dirkx, 1991). In some cases, an individual comes to represent the emotionality
of the group. This group member catalyzes activity in the group around this emotionality,
calls the status quo into question, and often propels the group into an alternative way of
understanding its situation. In this sense, a member of the group acts as a deposit and
proxy for the split off (disowned) aspects of the group-as-a-whole (disowned). This

group member is a receptacle for the projected parts of his or her cohorts. In this way,

142

influential group members help move the group forward by forcing it to recognize and
deal with unwanted emotionality.

Janis may have been an influential member in her group. She was a member of
the group as a result of the instructor’s assignment. Nonetheless, Donald and Sophia had
a difficult time accepting her. Donald commented: “I’m not ready to let her in yet.”
Sophia noted: “Janis is clueless, that forces me to couch everything in terms of her
cluelessness.” Sophia and Donald remarked several times that they thought alike, but
Janis did not think like them. The characteristics of Janis’ role may have mirrored the
paradox in this group. Janis was a member, but Donald and Sophia were not accepting
her as a full group member.

In this study, the groups created surrogate teachers to reduce the anxiety
associated with the lack of a traditional instructor role and course structure. The
surrogates began to act out their symbolic roles as a service to the group (Wells, 1990) by
becoming what Bion (1961) calls a dependency leader. They embodied the dependency
needs of the group and allowed the group to move forward in the face of potentially
paralyzing emotionality. The surrogates in this study acted as if they were teachers by
providing a sense of security for the group. They mimicked the behavior of a teacher.

The roles of influential group members are to act out the central tension or
assumption for the group. That is, the group members enter into an “unconscious
collusion” (Gibbard, 1975 as cited by Wells, 1990) or contract by acting out a drama that
represents the tension in the group. The members remain in their symbolic roles as long
as the central tension remains unresolved (Gibbard, 1974). After the symbolic roles were

created, the participants in this study may have felt that the group was a safe place for

143

them. For example, they shared ideas and agreed upon meeting times that were
convenient for everyone, etc. The participants moved closer together and cooperated with
the group. The group was moving toward individuation.

Yet, in order to utilize the surrogate, other members of the group needed to act “as
if” they were helpless and dependent upon the surrogate. Chris and Ginger in this study
continually referred to themselves as clueless and dependent upon Nard, the surrogate.
They had been assigned these roles and implicitly accepted them.

Gradually, however, the powerful emotional effect of the influential group
member on the group begins to wane. Group members grow increasingly uncomfortable
with the role assignments. For example, Janis complained that her group members
critically examined her contributions and she was silenced. Ginger and Chris lamented
that they felt unable to contribute anything to the group. For example, Ginger lamented:
“I feel like the albatross in the group.” Nard, one of the surrogate teachers complained: “I
felt put upon.”

Gibbard (1994) asserts that group members begin to sense that the symbolic roles
created through the fusion process do not meet their emotional needs. That is, the roles
do not allow them to be themselves. He maintains that each role is contingent upon the
unconscious contract among the members. The contract, however, obligates each
member to sacrifice or suppress aspects of him or herself in service to the group’s
individuation process. Yet, the participants did not like their symbolic roles. They began
to feel that they were losing their individuality into the group (obliterated), so they began

to withdraw from the group. To help combat these fears of fusion, differences among the

144

participants were highlighted. They began to form coalitions, to limit discussion, to
engage in fantasy, and to minimize the conflicts.

The online environment facilitated these strategies. The asynchronous
communication allowed members to ignore postings from their group members. The
synchronous communication allowed the group members to talk over one another.
Members could easily ignore a response in the chat room by pretending not to see it or by
refusing to acknowledge it. The fast paced nature of the chat session easily facilitated
this process. The participants, however, directed their hostile feelings at the computer
rather than the group.

Yet, by withdrawing, the participants sensed that they were also giving up the
benefits they enjoyed from group membership. For example, they did not have anyone to
listen to their ideas, they lost the ability to hear other perspectives, and they lost the
ability to share the workload. For example, India complained: “I don’t get to see the
whole problem. . .only my little piece.” The coping strategies also generated issues
associated with de-authorizing traditionally marginalized members within the group. The
participants felt more distant and alienated fi'om the group. They fantasized that “if only”
they could switch groups, have more whole class discussions, and meet face-to-face,
things would improve.

During the group assessment and reflection period, the participants noted the
things they learned about the group process and the subject matter content. They felt
confident about the group’s ability to accomplish the work. The participants sensed that
the group was a safe place. Janis noted: “I think our group is going to be ok now.” They

decided to give the group another try; they entered into the fusion process again.

145

According to Gibbard (1974), the group could now further differentiate the roles
for participants to continue the same drama or to move on to another one, which allowed
the group to progress in its individuation process. Finally, when the participants in this
study moved back to the group they encountered the same tensions and coping strategies,
so the participants withdrew again. This process occurred during each problem, locking
the group into a back and forth iterative cycle.

The group’s individuation process allowed the group to grow and develop so that
it could complete the assigned work. The group members entered into an unconscious
contract to act out the groups’ assumptions. The group, through the collective projective
identification, assigned symbolic roles to its members. As the group members acted out
the symbolic roles, the group was able to develop different aspects of its identity. The
individuation process, is well documented in the face-to-face literature on small groups
(Boyd, 1991; Gibbard, 1974), but minimized in the online literature on small group
dynamics such as Fisher et a1. (2000) and McDonald & Gibson (1998). The findings of
this study therefore, extend the work on small online groups to demonstrate the

individuation process in online contexts.

Human Computer Interaction

The participants described at least two ways that the online environment may
have influenced the group individuation process and provided opportunities for the
participants to rework aspects of themselves. First, the online communication facilitated
the reflection process. Janis, Sophia, and Chris described the ways in which they needed

to carefully craft their responses to their group members, especially if they needed to

146

disagree. Janis remarked that the reflection process required a lot of “mental preparation”
so that the person who received the communication would interpret it the way that she
wanted. Chris commented on the difficulty of telling her group members that they were
jumping to conclusions without fully discussing the issues in the problem. She did not
want them to think she was being “pushy.” She needed to carefully word her comments
so that she would not be misinterpreted. In the above examples, the computer-mediated
communication forced a more reflective response to conversation contributions. These
stories are supported by the literature on Internet courses and online small groups
(Eastrnond, 1994; McConnell, 2000; McGrath & Bredalrl, 1998). Each of these authors
described the reflection process that learners used before crafting their messages. The
group participants in their studies noted that they were able to write and edit their work
before they posted it to the discussion board. These authors concluded that the nature of
the asynchronous communication provided for a more reflective discussion.

The findings suggested that the computer served a second role. It facilitated the
strategies that the groups used to cope with tension. Sophia related a story of a time when
she did not understand a comment Janis made. She remarked:

It was hard for me to articulate that over the computer, like explain

yourself or please fill me in more. I have no idea what you just meant and

without that sounding defensive or challenging or accusing.

She did not make any attempt to call Janis nor e-mail her. Donald and India directed
their anger at the computer screen rather than the group member whom they perceived
created their frustration. Donald yelled “at the computer.” India wanted “to put her foot
through the computer.” J arris commented that she “was tired of the computer” in the same

conversation that she described her anxiety about excessive interaction with her group

147

members. It was as though she reacted to the computer in the same way she was reacting
to the group members.

Reeves and Nass (1996) contend that people unconsciously assign responsibility
for messages and the feelings associated with those messages to the most proximate
source, such as the computer rather than the originating source. In their words, Donald,
Janis, and India may have attributed their feelings about the group to the computer. Their
statements suggest that the computer evoked feelings that are usually attributed to the
group. Reeves and Nass (1996) argue that people do not make unconscious distinctions
between real and the mediated. They take what the media presents as the real thing. In
terms of the group individuation process, the conflict the members felt was instrumental
for the group identity development. These findings suggest that the learners in the online
small groups react to the computer the same way that learners do in face-to-face settings.
Moreover, the computer may serve as a barrier that sits between the group and the
members, and the computer may influence both the small group transformation and the

participant’s opportunity to rework aspects of themselves as learners and group members.

Individual Transformation

The first section outlined the individuation process for the group-as-a-whole. In
this section, I briefly describe the aspects of the findings that suggest individual
transformation. Since the focus of this study was on the group level, the data that support
this process are not as ample. Nevertheless, I present this section to offer insight into the
type of processes that the individual group members experienced. In this section, I will

use Sophia to describe this process.

148

Despite the fundamental ambivalence the participants experienced during the
course, a few members were able to articulate changes in their perceptions about
themselves as learners and as group members. Sophia described a number of changes that
suggested individual transformation. Overall, Sophia described herself as a relational
learner, who learns with other people if she has a chance to get to know them. She also
described herself as one who is undisciplined and hopes the group “will inspire in me
some discipline and involve me to work independently.” Moreover, Sophia noted that
she does not like to make decisions. In a previous group, Sophia was the “outcast.” The
members of her group thought she was not going to contribute equitably to the work,
because she told them she did not care about grades. Finally, Sophia described herself as
one who cares about gender issues as they relate to social justice.

During the semester, Sophia appeared to act “as if” she was very task-oriented
and able to make clear decisions that were based on theory. Sophia confinle
complained that Janis was clueless, that her contributions to the group were not very
valuable, and that she did not appear to do her homework. Donald and Sophia acted on
behalf of the group and formed a coalition, limited conversations, and placed barriers
around what was considered as valid conversation. Moreover, Sophia began to reflect
upon her role in the group and concluded that she felt badly about the “two against one”
situation that existed in the group. She also described how she latched onto Donald’s
task master personality.

Sophia noted five pertinent changes for this section. 1) She acknowledged that she
had some barriers that prevented her from listening to others. She explained how she used

lots of resources and theory to prove her point and expected others in the group to do

149

likewise. When Janis failed to model her behavior, Sophia felt that J arris’ information
was not valid. 2) Sophia realized that she was very dependent upon the text and reluctant
to make decisions based on gut feelings. 3) She recognized that her behavior served to
silence Janis, which especially unsettled Sophia given her focus on social justice issues
for women. 4) Sophia realized that Janis had contributed to her learning about the group
process; and how important it was to discuss conflict when it occurred. 5) Sophia also
learned that Janis’ contributions were just as valid as the ones that she and Donald
offered.

Sophia’s description reflects the process of individual transformation as it often
occurs within the context of group transformation. As suggested by Boyd (1991), the
group-as-a-whole managed both its own individuation process, and provided an
atmosphere in which the individuals could progress along the road to their own
individuation, a fully complete person within the group.

Returning to the group transformation process provides a way to outline the
individual transformation process. When the pendulum was swinging toward the fusion
side of the continuum, the group may have been acting out a script that assumed that
Janis was a threat against the group. The group appeared to act out this script for much of
the semester. Janis, Sophia, and Donald split off their unwanted parts onto one another
so that the group could create symbolic roles for the group members to play as it acted
out this unconscious drama. Janis may have played the role of the influential or focal
person in the group (Dirkx, 1991). She may have represented the paradox that the group
encountered by pointing out what was wrong with the status of the group. For example,

she was a member of the group, but Sophia and Donald would not accept her as a

150

member. Donald noted in his journal: “I am not ready to let her in yet.” To voice the
paradox, the group called upon the focal person, Janis. She continually complained that
Donald and Sophia were leaving her out of the group conversations (e. g., “they talked
over her head”). Dirkx asserts that the focal person is often rewarded for their efforts
with further silencing.

While the group was acting out the script that Janis was a threat to the group,
Sophia became uncomfortable about her role in the drama. She stated: “I feel guilty about
silencing [Janis].” Rather than withdrawing from the group during the third problem,
Sophia began to recognize the parts of herself that she had previously disclaimed. She
began to see Janis differently; the threat to the group was changing. The symbolic roles
used to act out this drama became defunct at this point. Sophia recognized that the things
she feared about Janis were actually aspects of herself that she was denying. That is, she
recognized the split off parts as being a part of herself. In this case, the unconscious
drama served as a way to make the unconscious conscious (Boyd, 1991). These
interactions with one’s outer world often serve to trigger or mediate the dilemma of the
individuation process (Boyd, 1991). Through the group individuation process, Sophia
may have been able to see the parts she had disowned and split off; the unconscious
became conscious.

Sophia may have then accepted these as parts of herself that she needed to
renegotiate to resolve the paradox she saw within herself. In this way, Sophia was coming
to understand different aspects of herself through the reflection process (Boyd, 1991).
The different aspects of the Self usually remain hidden but exert influence upon the way

people understand themselves as well as others. In other words, Sophia was beginning to

151

experience aspects of individual transformation. As a result of the group individuation
process, Sophia described a way that she began to re-work aspects of herself as a learner
and as a group member.

These findings expand the work of McConnell (2002) who also found that the
learners within his small online PBL groups negotiated their identity as learners. He
attributed this change to the collaboration process. McConnell asserted that learners were
challenged to change their identity as learners taking responsibility for judging the quality
of their own work as well as one another’s work; to become members of a new
community of practice; and authorizing one another as experts within the learning
environment. The participants within this study were challenged in similar ways. The
findings, however, suggest that the group individuation process may have influenced the
changes in identity.

The individuation process for the group-as-a-whole and the individual
transformation process have helped to illuminate the group processes in these small
online groups. An examination of these processes provided a way to gain insights into the
intrapsychic and interpersonal issues that the participants encountered in the small online
group. These issues are critical to both the collaborative learning and problem-based
learning approaches because unless the group grows to a sufficient stage of maturity, it
cannot produce quality work (Miller et al., 1994; Smith & Berg, 1987; Wheelan, 1994).
Groups are in danger of devoting their emotional energy to the conflict rather than the
assigned task. The literature on small online groups, however, minimizes these important
processes by providing them scant attention. In addition to the intrapsychic and

interpersonal issues, the social-cultural issues warrant additional attention. Social-cultural

152

issues may influence the individuation process and is therefore important when

considering the participants’ experiences in the small online groups.

TESocio-Cultural Processes Of Consensus And Problem-Bised me

In this section, I suggest that the consensus collaborative learning and problem-
based leaning approaches may contribute to the individuation process. The nature of the
problem-based and consensus collaborative learning generated three sources of tension:
(1) the consensus process, (2) the need to join new disciplinary communities, and (3) the
small group composition.

Consensus: The participants in this study expressed tension over the need to
reach consensus because they perceived that it forced them to give up something.
Moreover, the participants feared that by entering into the consensus learning process
they would lose their own voice and their sense of Self. The participants’ fear was due in
part to their definition of consensus. As Matthew remarked: “it’s all about compromise.”
According to Bruffee (1999), “consensus groups work on a limited but open-ended task,
negotiating among themselves what they think in order to arrive at some kind of
consensus or agreement (p. 21).” He contends that the participants of consensus
collaborative learning resist the process because of their educational socialization. These
findings support Bruffee’s claim. India remarked: “Much from the traditional [the
teacher trarrsrrrits knowledge] is still valuable.” An exarrrination of the consensus process
fi'om a political perspective, however, reveals that consensus, much like individuation,

may be a life long journey or dream that is never realized.

153

Scholars such as Trimbur (1989) criticize Bruffee’s notion of consensus
collaborative learning because it ignores the political nature of consensus discussion-
making. Trimbur (1989) suggests that we view consensus from the lens of conflict.
Trimbur expands Habermas’ (197 5 as cited by Trimbur, 1989) notion of “success
orientation of instrumental control and relational efficiency” (p. 610) and maintains that
consensus does not reflect the ability to neutralize dissenting opinions, but rather accepts
that consensus is a struggle that is never fully resolved. Moreover, Trimbur argues:

The consensus we ask students to reach in the collaborative classroom will

be based not so much on collective agreements as on collective

explanations of how people differ, where there differences come from, and

whether they can live and work together with these differences (p. 610).

Trimbur suggests that we think of consensus in terms of dissension and that we examine
the nature of the difference and find ways that we can live and work with the differences.
According to Trimbur, the differences never go away. This process appears to mirror the
individuation process. The group uses the learners’ diversity to foster the individual
transformation process (Gibbard, 1974). That is, the consensus process may have
enabled the participants to see where the differences come fi'om. In Sophia’s example
above, some of the differences were actually a reflection of herself.

Trimbur’s description also asks the group of students to use their conflict to better
understand underlying sources of tension that prevent them from realizing consensus.
Trimbur remarks that we must begin to realize that consensus is an “utopian dream” for
which we are provided many opportunities to learn from, but rarely attain (Trimbur,

1989). Nonetheless, learners can agree to disagree not only because everyone has their

own agenda, but also because “justice demands that we recognize the inexhaustibility of

154

difference and that we organize the conditions in which we live and work accordingly”
(p. 61 5).

Trimbur’s work might explain why the participants experienced tension with
regard to the consensus process. If consensus is indeed a utopian dream, then each time
the members arrived at a point for agreement, they “hit a wall” and experienced profound
stress, which caused them to withdraw from the process by withdrawing from the group.
The stress generated by the consensus process may have further fueled the need to act out
scripts to address the tension. On the other hand, the consensus process may also provide
“unlimited” Opportunities for group individuation and individual transformation, a
reworking of the participants’ identity as learners and group members.

Joining new disciplinary communities: The participants also experienced tension
over the need to join new disciplinary communities. Several participants in the study
described the ways in which they needed to change aspects of themselves to
accommodate the small group learning process. India commented on the fact that she did
not like “collaborative learning.” Donald commented on how he preferred to learn with
“facts” and the ability to “regurgitate” the information back on tests. Moreover, a few
participants such as Chris, Donald, and India described the need to have “right answers”
to the problems. Yet, many within the education community are shifting their focus away
from teacher led instruction to focus on social constructivist types of learning (Barr &
Tagg, 1995).

As participants in the course, the students joined the small groups to not only co-
construct new knowledge (V ygotsky, 1978) but to join new disciplinary communities

represented by the teacher. That is, the participants were expected to learn to think and

155

act like other educators. Bruffee (1999) defines consensus collaborative learning as a
reacculturation process in which learners enter the knowledge community — for example
an educational community - to become a member of this new community represented by
the teacher. The goal of reacculturation is for students to acquire the community property
(the values, beliefs, symbols, rules of conduct, etc.) of the new community. That is, a
group of heterogeneous students acting as interdependent learners work collaboratively in
groups to form the transition community.

The small groups (transition communities) provide the social space for learners to
challenge and reshape each other’s thinking through meaningful connections with the
content based on past and present experiences (Bruffee, 1999; Shor, 1992). The
participants may have sensed the challenge to reshape the way they think and they may
have resisted the process. Bruffee explains that the learners are actually resisting the
need to share in the responsibility for their learning and to accept the responsibility for
the fellow group members. These findings are consistent with Bruffee and Shor’s claim.
The learners did not want to accept this responsibility. Nard complained: “I felt put
upon.”

Yet, by doing so the participants sensed that they would lose their identity. India
asked: “Why can’t some of us be individual learners.” Theorists Hmelo and Evensen
(2000) admit that when learners join transition communities they also agree to enter new
professional communities. These authors recognize that joining the new communities is
an identity-making process. This implicit agreement is conscious but closely resembles
the individuation process with its unconscious contract. Learning is therefore, “not an

accumulation of information but a transformation of the individ ” (Hmelo & Evensen,

156

2000; p. 2). The process transforms both the individual and their underlying cultural
tools as they adopt the new cultural tools of the new community. When learners enter the
PBL context and consensus collaborative classes, they are therefore asked to make
radical shifts or rework aspects of their identity both inside and outside the classroom
much like the individuation and individual transformation processes. The small group
makes similar demands on the individual in unconscious ways. Interestingly, joining the
group evokes the reworking of one’s identity as a group member as well as one’s identity
as a member of the larger professional community.

The heterogeneous group: In this section, I will briefly outline how the political
nature of heterogeneous groups might influence the group individuation process and the
participants’ opportunities to rework aspects of their identity. The participants enjoyed
many aspects of their membership in diverse groups. For example, they enjoyed the
ability to share the work and to learn from diverse perspectives. Yet, the participants’
stories are filled with negative influences resulting from the strategies. The strategies that
were intended to provide relief from the tension not only failed to alleviate the tension,
but also created unsafe spaces where the members of society who are traditionally
marginalized (e.g., younger learners, those with less experience, these with lower
academic standing, those of a different race, and certain females) were de-authorized.

These findings are consistent with the literature on small online groups.
Educators (McConnell, 2000; Straus & McGrath, 1994; Weisband et al., 1995) maintain
that social-cultural issues such as gender and educational background continue to
influence online group discussions. For example, male students (McConnell, 2000; Straus

& McGrath, 1994), learners with higher academic status (Weisband, et. al., 1995), as well

157

as learners who speak the native language tend to (Ragoonaden & Bordeleau, 2000)
dominate the discussion. The findings also refute claims made by scholars (Dunbrovsky,
Keisler, & Sethan, 1991; Harasim, 1987; McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987; Kiesler &
McGuire, 1986; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Weisband, 1992) who suggest that social and
cultural issues are less salient within the online environment. In other words, the social
status of individual members negatively influences their experiences in the larger society
as well as in the small online group.

Studies on face-to-face groups also provide insight into the negative experiences
of the participants with regard to diversity. For example, theorists such as Duek (2000)
and Rosser (1997) explain that when groups are comprised of one person of color among
all European American members, or one female in male dominated disciplinary
classroom groups, they are disadvantaged because they receive undo scrutiny and
spotlighting. Therefore, a brief examination of the issues concerning group composition
is warranted to provide possible insights into the influence of group composition on the
group individuation process.

Proj ective identification may have contributed to the problem. That is, the group
may have produced symbolic roles that mirror the age, gender, race, language,
educational backgrounds, etc. found in the larger society outside of the classroom (Wells,
1990). Scholars such as Smith and Berg (1987) maintain that the small group becomes a
place where issues within the larger society are acted out. Sophia and Janis described
how J arris’ race might have been a contributing factor for her negative experiences with
her group. Sophia remarked: “I would say that the whole issue of diversity in our group,

both with respect to race and gender, I feel that was an underlying issue.” Sophia, Janis,

158

and Donald may have been acting out several unresolved issues with race and gender that
exist within the larger society (Smith & Berg, 1987). Small group theorists such as
(Wells, 1990) and multicultural theorists such as Sleeter and Grant (2003) assert that
projective identification contributes to a number of multicultural issues. Therefore, the
group composition is another characteristic that may influence the individuation process.
Wells (1990) explains that during the collective projective identification process, the
projected parts may nrirror stereotypical images of traditionally marginalized groups in
the larger society. In this way, the group is actually acting out issues that expand the
small online group. That is, the members are actually playing out societal issues. While
the projective identification process has many adaptive functions, namely the group
individuation process, most groups never progress to the point of full individuation.
Therefore, marginalized members may need to continue to play out stereotypical roles
within these groups. The political realities for learners with lower social status would
therefore persist. Although the individuation process provides opportunities for
individual members to rework aspects of their identity, the cost may be quite high in both
the face-to-face group as well as the online group.

In summary, the purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of
learners’ perceptions of their experiences with collaborative learning approaches that
utilize small online groups, the issues learners faced, and to understand the ways in which
learners negotiated those issues in an online context. The findings of this study suggest
that group work represents a location in which members rework their sense of self as a

learner and as a group member. The processes of group transformation, the hmnan

159

computer interaction, individual transformation, and the socio-cultural processes
associated with consensus problem-based learning influences these opportunities.

While literature on small online groups provides scant attention to this process,
the face-to-face literature especially the work on the individuation process, demonstrates
that the learners are experiencing the emergence of the individuation process for the
group. Moreover, as the group grows and develops, the individual group members find
opportunities for individual transformation. The online environment with its delayed
communication and fast paced chat conversations facilitate both the resistance to
collaborative learning and the individuation process. The nature of the consensus process,
the small groups as transition communities, and the small group composition may also

influence the individuation process.

Implications For Practice

Those who critique this work may be tempted to suggest that the results were
ephemeral and based on the idiosyncratic nature of the learning approach. The findings,
however, suggest that the results were more enduring since the experiences persisted
throughout the semester and the learners experienced frustrations from multiple sources.
Others might suggest that the level of reflection was also ephemeral since the learners
were studying theories about themselves as adult learners. In other words, the
participants were able to engage in a different level of reflection that may not be possible
in other disciplines such as science or mathematics. I argue that the findings are usefirl to
instructors with different orientations to learning as well as those in different disciplines

for at least three reasons.

160

First, the contextualized nature of the learning content and context enabled the
learners to more deeply engage in the learning. The participants therefore, felt that were
able to learn the content in a way that was more meaningful than their previous learning
experiences. Sophia noted that what she learned was more a part of her than content
learned in face-to-face classes that did not utilize a problem-based approach. A number
of the participants noted that they were more motivated to learn the content because of
the assigned problems. Even learners such as India and Donald who were concerned that
they would not learn the theory because of the lack of traditional instruction, remarked
that they were indeed able to understand the theory as a result of the course design.
These findings are similar to other studies of online learning, which demonstrated that the
learning can be both satisfying and highly acceptable when care is provided to design a
course that developed and maintained a learning community (Haythronthwaite, Kazrner,
Robins, & Shoemaker, 2000; McConnell, 2002).

Second, the probability that our learners will engage in consensus collaborative
efforts may increase as our society becomes more global. The changing nature of our
global society makes it necessary to learn to live, work, and interact with people who are
different from us (Merriam & Cafferella, 1999). In fact, the use of virtual teams within
the work place that depend upon consensus collaborative approaches to decision making
is growing at a remarkable rate. In 1999, fifty-five percent of large companies utilized
virtual teams that included scientists as well as social scientists, many of whom live in
different parts of the world (deLisser, 1999). Virtual teams allow corporations to remain
flexible and competitive in global markets (Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendirckson, 1998).

Issues such as the lack of trust among group members, online communication, difficulty

161

forming team cohesiveness, and the need to work with tight deadlines challenge members
of virtual teams (Lipnack & Stamps, 2000; Robey, Khoo, Min Khoo, & Powers, 2000).
These issues are similar to the challenges the participants in this study encountered.

The literature on face-to-face groups enables us to understand that small group
work is always an emotional process because of the identity negotiation that occurs
between the individual and the small group (Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Wells, 1990). The
classroom setting in which the instructor lectures is also an emotional process for the
learners. Psychodynamic processes such as projective identification occurs within the
larger society, the large classroom, as well as the small group as a microcosm of the
larger society (Chen, Chae & Gunn, 1998; Wells, 1990). The findings of this study
suggests that the small online group provides opportunities to recognize and work
through the negative consequences of the projective identification process that are absent
in the large lecture based classroom. In other words, the consensus collaborative small
group may provide the instructor as well as the team manager in the workplace
opportunities to help group members advance past their fears of working with others, first
in the small group, then, within the larger society. The work in the classroom may
prepare learners for the work they will do in their communities as well as their
workplaces.

Third, PBL has been used successfully in a number of disciplines including
mathematics and science (Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001) for both undergraduate and
graduate courses. Although scholars utilized different variations of the PBL process, they
share the idea that learners are more deeply involved in the learning process when they

are engaged in the problems that reflect professional practice. In addition, the National

162

Science Foundation (1996) recently called for the use of small groups in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) in undergraduate classrooms. An
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989) report advised, “the
collaborative nature of scientific and technological work should be strongly reinforced by
fiequent group activity” (p. 148). In a meta-analysis on small group learning, Springer,
Stanne, & Donovan (1999) concluded that small group learning is effective in promoting
greater academic achievement, increased persistence in SMET class, and more favorable
attitudes toward learning within face-to-face classes. Yet, Springer, Stanne, and Donovan
did not discuss the emotional issues associated with small group work. While it is
impossible to generalize the results of this study across disciplines, these findings may
have potential benefits to those educators who focus on content, those who focus on
social justice, as well as educators in other disciplines.

Insights into the individuation process in the small online groups have a number
of positive connotations for higher and adult education. Based on my research, I am not
advocating that every instructor use small consensus collaborative online groups. This
research, however, suggests that those who decide to do so must fully understand the
nature of the experience so that that they can better attend to the issues learners
experience in groups. For those who opt to use collaborative small online groups in their
courses, I offer the following implications for professional development and online
course design.

Professional development: The findings from this study are very consistent with
the learner experiences face-to-face groups. That is, the issues around intimacy (Fisher et

al., 2000) and authority are similar regardless of the medium. Therefore, the literature on

163

face-to-face groups is useful for understanding the implications of using small online
groups. Higher and adult educators who decide to use consensus collaborative group
work online may therefore need to make several transitions to work effectively with
social constructivists methods that use consensus collaborative learning. Those
instructors who are new to these pedagogical orientations need to transition fiom the
information giver to coach. This role may be quite challenging and requires new skills
(Bruffee, 1999; Miller, etal., 1994; Sage & Torp, 1997). Teachers and leaders need to
give up the idea of themselves as the expert and sole authority for the groups. Many
teachers and leaders find this process difficult. For example, teachers may experience
discomfort giving up the sense of predictability and control within traditional classrooms
(Bruffee, 1999; Sage & Torp, 1997).

In their new capacity as coach, teachers, and leaders, higher and adult educators
need to help learners make this transition as well. For example, when learners approach
instructors for the “right answer” faculty should learn to challenge the learners to draw
their own conclusions and learn to support those conclusions. In this study, the
participants attempted to get the teacher to retain the traditional role as the authority
figure by asking him to tell them the “right answer” or to step in when members of the
group appeared unable to contribute to the problem resolution. The teacher or leader
must resist the urge to continue in their old roles as information givers (Sorg & Torp,
1997)

Second, teachers and leaders need to distinguish between responses that may
signal barriers to development and responses that signal normal group deve10pment

(Miller et al., 1994). These authors contend that teachers are often tempted to shuffle

164

group members to reduce the conflict and the ensuing discomfort the learners’ may
experience. They caution however, that shuffling or adjusting the groups inhibits the
group individuation process and reduces opportunities for learners to rework needed
aspects of their identity as learners and group members. Moreover, it may keep them
dependent upon the teacher.

Faculty developers can help faculty understand that there is in fact, an inverse
correlation between group harmony and group performance, but there is a direct
correlation between group harmony and participant satisfaction (Miller et al., 1994;
Smith & Berg, 1987; Wells, 1990). When conflict and emotional stress are absent, group
members are more satisfied, but the performance of the group decreased. Moreover,
professional developers need to help faculty with the ability to analyze group
development and recognize the factors they have little power to effect. These factors
include organizational issues such the need to assign individual grades at the end of the
course, institutional calendars, and learner attitudes such as the experiences that members
bring with them to the group, and their former educational socialization. Moreover, since
groups often deteriorate over time, teachers need to trust the group process to work.

They can develop this trust by learning to appropriately analyze or diagnose the groups’
progress (Miller et al., 1994; Srrrith & Berg, 1987; Wells, 1990).

Third, Smith and Berg (1987) and Wells (1990) recommend specific interventions
for those who retain administrative or instructional responsibility for groups. The
instructor or leader should make use of specific interventions that help the group become
more aware of the underlying issues and how these issues may shape and influence the

ways in which they work together. These interventions are not aimed at training teachers

165

or leaders to become psychotherapists, but to enable them to understand appropriate
interventions if they use consensus small groups in their online courses.

These implications also apply to managers of small online or virtual teams. Years
of research on small groups in organizational settings demonstrate that workplace groups
experience similar issues as educational teams (Smith & Berg, 1987; Wells, 1990). In
fact, Hill (2003) found that a virtual team comprised of members from two different
countries completely shut down and were unable to complete their assigned work due to
issues related to trust and an inability to develop team cohesiveness. Therefore, managers
and professional developers who work with the members of the virtual teams can also
benefit from the suggestions outlined above.

Course design: In the online course, the instructor may need to differentiate their
comments to the group that address the group’s process from those that address issues
related to the content. To help differentiate an instructor’s interventions on group process
fiom that of content, the researcher and instructor of this course designed a separate
thread in the discussion board for instructor interventions on group processes when the
course was offered a second time. The thread though, did not help the instructor to fully
understand the nature of the tensions. Many of the participants’ true feelings did not
surface until the interview or in the journal, which was not handed in until the end of the
semester. The instructor should therefore, reconsider the assignments to have access to
the journal earlier and more often in the semester. In addition, the instructor can learn to
analyze the achieved records for signs of conflict throughout the course.

Years of research on group heterogeneity and group performance demonstrates

that diverse groups can increase innovation (O’Reilly, Williams & Barsdade, 1998), but

166

heterogeneously comprised groups also experience increased levels of conflict. The three
groups in this study were diverse in terms of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, educational
background, work expertise, academic standing, and majors. The findings cannot be
generalized to larger populations because of the small number of groups in the study, but
the findings did demonstrate that diversity was the cause of increased understanding of
the content as well as heightened levels of emotional stress.

The findings suggest important issues related to age, race and language diversity
in a group setting. The participants perceived that the oldest member of the group was the
most influential during decision-making. Their influence had a direct effect on the group
process since each of them, Donald, India, and Nard were the most opposed to
collaborative learning and the most impatient regarding other members’ participation and
group contributions. The changing nature of both the postsecondary student body as well
as the workforce within the United States makes it imperative that people learn to work
across generational differences. Second, Rosser (1997) asserts that it may be better to
have a homogeneous group than to hinder the learning of those learners who are already
marginalized. Yet, these findings suggest that the groups with the most explicit
differences related to race and language (groups 1 and 2) had more incidents which
suggested individual transformation, as compared to the group with all European
American females (group 3). While there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions
regarding the differences between the groups in this regard, instructors should be aware

of the psychological and political implications of the group composition.

167

Recommendations for Future Study

This study focused on three groups in a single online course. The learners and the
instructor were both new to the online environment and to the problem-based learning
design. I therefore recommend that other researchers expand this study to examine both
online PBL courses as well as those that use other approaches to small online groups. It
would also be valuable to expand the inquiry to include a longitudinal study to follow the
members into other online courses and small group experiences. This course was situated
in a Research Extensive University, and it would be enlightening to expand the present
study to include other post secondary institutions such as community colleges or for-
profit online institutions.

The human-computer interaction also warrants additional attention. In this study,
the members indicated that they either blamed the computer or they directed their anger
at the computer. This finding suggests that the computer may receive some of the vital
conflict that the group-as-a-whole needs to manage the individuation process. I
recommend that other studies examine more fully the influence of the computer on the
individuation process.

The participants’ stories suggest that a few individuals described changes toward
transformation through individuation. The scope of this study did not allow an
exploration of this process in great detail. Therefore, I recommend that future studies
focus on transformation in small online groups by using the transformative learning lens
(Boyd, 1998; Boyd and Myers, 1991).

As mentioned previously, professional developers have an important role to play

in facilitating training that will allow faculty to develop interventions to use when groups

168

are exhibiting difficulty moving forward. Additional research is needed to determine the

effects of different interventions on the small online group process.

Conclusion

Those who choose to use small collaborative online groups need to be aware of
the benefits and consequences of the group on the individuation process. Years of
research on small groups indicate that the underlying interpersonal and intrapsychic
processes occur whether we are aware of the processes or not (e.g. Bennis & Shepard,
1956; Smith & Berg, 1987). The individuation process can be healthy (Gibbard, 1974;
Wells, 1990), but through the projective identification process, the symbolic roles may
have negative political consequences such as scapegoating and assigning stereotypical
roles to marginalized individuals (Chen et al, 1999; Wells, 1990). This study allows
faculty, learners, and others with interests in small group learning in online collaborative
contexts, to reconsider the issues these learners face. The results of this study can enable
higher and adult educators to recognize additional issues that might affect learners’
experiences in small collaborative online learning groups. This awareness can equip

them to more fully attend to underlying psychological issues in these groups.

Personal Reflections
As I began this study, my thoughts were filled with the fi'ustrations I encountered
as a student in small groups in face-to-face classrooms. Although I often used small
groups in my own teaching practice, I thoroughly disliked working in small groups. As a

result of this study, I now understand the benefits of working in small groups. Although

169

it is a fi'ustrating experience, the frustration has a valuable purpose. The participants in
this study taught me that one of the most valuable benefits is the that learners can begin
to change the way they view learning, themselves as learners, and their identity as group
members. I try to effect these kind of changes in students when I teach. Perhaps the price
for these changes is high levels of anxiety. While analyzing the data, I often asked
myself if I would use the consensus collaborative learning with a PBL approach in my
classroom. The answer is yes. The participants noted positive learning outcomes as well
as identity growth. For these reasons, I think this type of teaching approach is warranted.
My understanding of the ways in which learners resist consensus collaborative learning in
small online groups as well as the unsafe spaces that were created as a result of their

resistance will motivate me to continue to find ways to help whenever possible.

170

APPENDICES

171

APPENDIX A

Regina Smith and Christina Dokter
Michigan State University

412 Erikson Hall

East Lansing, Michigan 48824

Dear (Student name):

We are studying adult learning in multiple settings with special emphasis on adult
learning and technology.

We are soliciting participants fiom this online adult learning class to participate in
a research study. The purpose of this study is to better understand the experiences of
students in online courses.

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. The instructor John Dirkx will
never see the names of the participants. He will have access to the data after the class is
completed, the grades are posted and we have removed all identifying information. We
will not share any information that you share with us with the instructor until the course
is over and the grades are turned in.

Your participation may include a brief survey of your educational background and
experience with computers, participating in an interview, and a follow-up telephone
interview that will be tape-recorded. In addition, you may be asked to complete a brief
task on the computer. We would also like your permission to review the conversations
you have in the on-line class chat rooms or discussion boards. If you are chosen to
participate in all parts of our study, your time commitment will be about 1.5 hours during
the course of the semester. This participation should pose no risk or harm to you because
you have the right to choose and control the information that you share with us. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. When we write the
results of the research, we will mask your identity and present group data as a means of
protecting your identity.

When we meet for the interview, we will review these promises with you. You
are free to decide not to participate in this study or to withdraw at any time without
adversely affecting your relationship with the instructor of this class or with us. Your
decision will not result in any loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Your
grade is not affected by your decision regarding this research study.

If as you reflect upon your participation, you have any questions or concerns,
please contact Regina Smith at 517-882—7763 or smithre9@msu.edu or Christina Dokter
at 517-655-8407 or dokterch@msu.edu. For questions about your rights as human
subjects of research you may contact Ashir Kumar, MD. at 517-355-2180.

Thank You

Regina Smith and Christina Dokter
412 Erickson Hall

172

APPENDIX B

BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE

We are conducting a study about the learning experiences of students in subgroups within
online distance education classes. Your participation in this study is very important and
your privacy is one of my main concerns. The information you provide in this
questionnaire will be help confidential.

About You

Name: Date:

 

 

Gender: F M Age:

Ethnic/Racial Group: (Circle number)

1) Afi'ican

2) American Indian/Alaskan Native

3) Asian/Pacific Islander

4) Black/African American Non-Hispanic

5) Chicano/Mexican American

6) Hispanic

7) White/Caucasian Non-Hispanic

8) Note: if you are multiracial, please circle number 8 and the number of the
ethnic/racial group you most identify with or the ethnic/racial group to which you
are usually regarded in the community as belonging. For purposes of this question

you are multiracial if you have parents from more than one of the categories listed
above.

Are you currently working: (Circle one) Yes No
If yes, are you working: (Circle one) Part-time Full-time

Online class(s) that you are currently taking.

 

 

Student Status: (Circle one) Masters Doctoral Lifelong

Do you consider yourself a part-time or full-time student? (Circle one) Full-time Part-
time

How many online courses have you completed?

 

What are you currently interested in studying?

 

173

About your computer skills
How comfortable are you in working with computers?

Very Comfortable Very uncomfortable
1 2 3 4 6 7

Do you have your own computer at home? (Circle one) Yes No

Do you share a computer at home with someone else? (Circle one) Yes No
Do you have your have access to a computer at work? (Circle one) Yes No
Where will you usually use a computer for this class? (Circle all that apply)
Home Work Campus Other(please indicate)

What kinds of things do you use computers for? Check as many as are applicable and
give approximate hours per week that you do any of the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Task Approximate hours per week used
1. __ Games
2. __Word Processing
3. _E-mail
4. Chat rooms, instant messaging,
MUDs
5. _ Browsing the Internet
6. _ File Sharing via the Internet
7. __ Web page design
8. _ Spread sheets & Databases
9. Progarnming

 

10. _ Desktop publishing
1 1. __ Data Search & Analysis
12. Other (please specify below)

 

 

 

 

174

APPENDIX C

STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Instructions:

My name is , I wanted to meet with you just to talk a bit about student
here at Michigan State and your experiences in this adult learning class. A couple of us
will take with several students to help us get an idea of what the experiences have been
like. I’d like to tape record this session so that I don’t have to worry so much about
taking notes while we talk. You don’t have to worry, none of what you say will be seen
or heard by the instructor until after the class is over. We will not put your name or
any other identifying comments you might ask on any printed version of this
interview so that the instructor will not know your identity.

Any questions before we begin?
1. Describe for me your overall goals for coming to grad school?
0 What did you do prior to coming to graduate school?
0 How will this class contribute to your overall goals?
2. What experiences stand out for you so far in your graduate experience here
at Michigan State?
3. Think back over your educational career, and describe for me a classroom or
training experience that was especially positive for you.
c What made it especially positive for you?
0 What did you like most about the experience?

4. Think back over your educational career, and describe for me a classroom or
training experience that you consider especially negative?

0 What made it especially negative for you?

0 What did you dislike most about the experience?

175

5. Tell me about your decision to take this class?

0 How do you feel about online classes?

0 How many have you had?

0 In what ways if any has this class influenced you?

c In what ways if any has this class impacted others in your life? Describe
6. Tell me how you feel about this class being online?

0 Have you had other online classes?

0 If they talk about teams, then probe, if not focus on this class.

0 In what ways if any, has your feelings about this class being online
changed since the beginning of the semester?

7. Describe for me any experiences you have had working in small groups or
teams.

0 Within a classroom setting.

0 Outside a classroom setting

8. Tell me about this adult learning class.

0 What is it like to be a member of this class? What do you do?

0 What stands out for you about your experiences in this course so far?
9. Describe for me the members of your group in this class.

0 How many people are in your group.

0 What are the students like in the group?

0 How are the members similar or different from you?

176

10. Please describe your overall experience with your group in this class.

0 What aspects stand out for you so far?

0 If you were to describe your experience in this class to a colleague, what
would you say?

11. Let’s talk about the discussions among the members of your group?
0 How did you communicate with one another?
0 Describe to me the communication pattern of each member of the group?
0 Approximately how much time did you participate in the discussions?

0 How did the group members respond to individual member contributions
to the discussion?

12. I want to talk a little bit about how your group went about making decisions.

0 How were decisions about team meetings, roles and responsibilities etc.
determined?

0 Describe for me the level of authority each member had.
13. Describe for me how your group went about getting the work done.
0 How were tasks assigned?
0 How were group roles established?
0 How were tirnelines established?
0 How did the group decide the goals and objectives for the problems?

0 How did your group go about writing the report of your work?

177

14. In what ways was the time needed to complete assignments similar or
different from other classes that you have taken?

0 How much time did you spend writing responses on discussion boards or
chat rooms?

0 How much time did you spend asking for help?
0 How much time did you spend completing assignments?

15. Please complete this sentence. Working in small groups is like

 

16. In what ways would this class be similar or different if you were taking it in
(name their home country)? This question is only for international students?

17. Describe for me your ideal online course?
18. What keeps you participating in this class?

19. Is there anything else that you would like to share with me about your
overall graduate experience or this class?

Thank you for talking to me today.

178

APPENDIX D
Date
Participant Information
Dear (participant name):

Thank you for agreeing to take part in our research study. The purpose of the
study is to help us understand the experiences of students participating in small group
work within on-line courses.

Your participation may include completing a brief survey of your educational
background and experience with computers, and participating in an interview that will be
tape-recorded. In addition, you may also be asked to complete a brief task on the
computer and participate in a follow-up telephone interview conducted by either
Christina or Regina. We would also like your permission to review the conversations
you have in the on-line class chat rooms or bulletin boards. If you are chosen to
participate in all parts of our study, your time commitment will be about 1.5 hours over
the course of the semester. This participation should pose no risk or harm to you because
you have the right to choose and control the information that you share with us. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. When we write the
results of the research, we will mask your identity and present group data as a means of
protecting your identity. When we meet for the interview, we will review these promises
to you. You are free to decide not to participate in this study or to withdraw at any time
without adversely affecting your relationship with us or the instructor of this class at
Michigan State University. Your decision will not result in any loss of benefits to which
you are otherwise entitled.

If, as you reflect upon your participation, you have any questions or concerns,
please contact Regina Smith at 517-882-7763 or email: smithre9@msu.edu. You may
also contact Christina Dokter at 655-8407 or d_ol_(terch@msu.edu. For questions about
your rights as a human subject of research you may contact Ashir Kumar, M.D.at
517/355-2180.

In order to verify your willingness to participate, this letter includes a form
section with a signature line where your written name will indicate your informed
consent. I am enclosing two copies of this letter. Please sign and date one copy and
return it to me in the enclosed stamped envelope. You may retain the other copy for your
own records.

Your participation will contribute valuable information to the literature about
small groups in distance education courses.

Thank you so much for your cooperation. We look forward to seeing you and
hearing what you have to say.

Regina Smith
Christina Dokter

179

INFORMED CONSENT

Your signature indicates that you freely agree to be a part of the study on small
groups.

Name

 

Date

 

180

REFERENCES

181

REFERENCES

Abercrombie, M. L. (1960). Anatomy of judgment. Harmondsworth, NY: Basic
Books.

Allen, T. H., & Plax, T. G. (1999). Group communication in the formal
educational context. In L. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds), The handbook of
group communication theory & research (p. 493-519). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all
Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S.
(2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision-making: A meta analysis.
Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 87(1, January), 156-79.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning - A new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change, 27 (5), 13-25.

Barrows, H. S. (1988). The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois
University School of Medicine.

Barrows, H. S. (1994). Practice-based learning: Problem-based learning applied
to medical education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University of School of Medicine.

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach
to medical education (Vol. 52). New York: Springer.

Baxter-Magolda, MB. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship
constructive-development pedagogy. Nashville University Press, Nashville.

Bennis, W. G., & Shepard, A. H. (1956). A theory of group development. Human
Relations, 9, 415-457.

Berdal, J. L., & Craig, K. M. (1996). Equality of participation and influence in
groups: The effects of communication medium and sex composition. Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, 4 (2-3), 179-201.

Bernard, R., M., Beatriz, R. D., & St. Piere, D. (2000). Collaborative online
distance learning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21(2), 260-
77.

Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups and other papers. New York: Basic
Books.

182

Boshier, R., Mohapi, M., & Boulton, G. (1997). Best and worst dressed web
courses: Strutting into the let century in comfort and style. Distance Education, 18(2),
327-49.

Bosworth, K. (1994). Developing collaborative skills in college students. In K.
Bosworth & S. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and
eflective techniques (Vol. 59, pp. 25-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bouas, K. S., & Arrow, H. (1996). The development of group identity in
computer and face-to-face groups with membership change. Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, 4(2-3), 153-178.

Boyd, RD. (1991). The matrix model: A conceptual fiamework for small group
analysis. In personal transformations in small groups a Jungian perspective. R. D. Boyd
(Ed.), Thousand Oaks: Routledge.

Boyd, R. D. & Myers, G. J. (1988). Transforrnative education. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 7 (4), 261-284.

Brookfield, S. (1993). Through the lens of learning: How the visceral experience
of learning reframes teaching. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & D. Walker (Eds.), Using
experience for learning. Bristol, PA: Society for Research in Higher Education.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Adult learning: An overview. In A. Tuinjman (Ed),
International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools
and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture
of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learnin : Higher education,
interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2" ed.). Baltimore, MA: The John
Hopkins University Press.

Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance
education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2).

Burge, E. J. (1994). Learning in computer conference contexts: The learners
perspective. Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 19-43.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-Direction for lifelong learning: A Comprehensive guide
to theory and practice. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

183

Chen, D.W., Chae, M., Gunn, R.W. (1998). Splitting and projective identification
in multicultural group counseling. Journal for Specialists in Group Work 23(4), 372-3 87.

Clarebout, G., & Elsen, J. (2001). The ParlEuNet-project: Problems with the
validation of socio-constructivist design principles in ecological settings. Computers in
Human Behavior, 1 7(5-6), 453-464.

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous
classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning.
London: Routledge & Kegan.

Cunningham, P. M. (1988). The adult educator and social responsibility. In R. G.
Brockett (Ed.), Ethical issues in adult education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. (2001). Exploring collaborative learning online.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 5 (1).

Daloz, L.A., Keen, C. H, Keen, J. P., & Parks, 8. D. (1996). Common fire:
Leading lives of commitment in a complex world. Boston, Beacon Press.

Dede, C. J. (1996). Distance learning distributed learning: Making the
transformation. Learning And Leading With Technology, 23(April), 25-30.

Dennen, V. P. (2000). Task structuring for on-line problem-based learning: A
case study. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 239-248.

Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research
(2“‘1 ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

de Lisser, E. (1999, October 5). Update on small business: Firms with virtual
environments appeal to workers. Wall Street Journal, p. B2.

Dirkx, J. M. (1991). Understanding group transformation through the focal person
concept. In R. D. Boyd (Ed.), Personal transformation in small groups: A Jungian
perspective (pp. 65-96). London: Routledge.

Dirkx, J. M. (2001). The power of feelings: emotion, imagination, and the
construction of meaning in adult education. In S. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult
learning theory. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Dirkx, J. M. (1997). Using Groups Effectively In Collaborative Learning.
Unpublished manuscript.

184

Dirkx, J. M., & Deems, T. A. (1994, October 13 - 15). The influence of self-other
relationships in constructivist approaches to adult learning, Paper presented at the
Midwest Research to Practice in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee.

Duck, J. L. (2000). Whose group is it, anyway? Equity of student discourse in
problem-based learning (PBL). In D. H. Evemsen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-Based
Learning A Research Perspective 0n Learning Interactions, (pp. 75-107). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Duch, B. J ., Groh, S. E., Allen, D. E. (2001). The power of problem-based
learning: A practical "how to " for teaching undergraduate education in any discipline.
Sterling VA: Stylus

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. (1992). Constructivism And The Technology 0f
instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Durnbrowksy, V. J ., Keisler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization
phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making
groups. Human Computer Interaction, 6; 119-146.

Eastrnond, D. V. (1994). Adult distance study through computer conferencing.
Distance Education, 15 (1), 128-152.

Faidley, J ., Evensen, D. H., Salisbury-Glennon, J ., Glenn, J ., & Hmelo, C. (2000).
How are we doing? Methods of assessing group processing In A problem-based learning
context. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research
perspective on learning interactions (pp. 109-135). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Fisher, K., Phelps, R., & Ellis, A. (2000). Group processes online: Teaching
collaboration through collaborative processes. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3).

Flannnery, J. L. (1994). Teacher as co-conspirator: Knowledge and authority in
collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth & S. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative Learning:
Underlying Process and Eflective Techniques (Vol. 59). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

Garland, M. R. (1993). Student perceptions of the situational, institutional,
dispositional and epistemological barriers to persistence. Distance Education, 14(2), 181-
1 98.

Gerlach, J. M. (1994). Is this collaboration? In K. Bosworth & S. J. Hamilton

(Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and efl'ective techniques (Vol. 5 9,
pp. 5-14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

185

Gibbard, G. S. (1974). Individuation, fusion, and role specialization. In G. S.
Gibbard, J. J. Hartman, & R. D. Mann (Eds). Analysis of groups @p. 247-265). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Literacy and the pedagogy of voice and political
empowerment. Educational Theory, 38, 61 ~75.

Gunawardena, C. N. (1998). designing collaborative learning environments
mediated by computer conference: Issues and challenges in the Asian socio-cultural
context Indian Journal of Open Learning, 7(1), 101-1 19.

Guy, T. C. (1999). Providing culturally relevant adult education. In T. C. Guy
(Ed.), New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (Vol. 82 ). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and
intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new
environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.

Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated
graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 1 17-135.

Harasim, L., Starr, R. H., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A
field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Hill, C. (2003). Towards a theory of virtual work teams. In S. A. Lyman, & T. M.
Egan, (Eds.), Proceedings of the academy of human resources development: Vol. 2 (pp.
967-974). Minneapolis, Minnesota

Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer
networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Hiltz, S. R. (1998, November 7-12). Collaborative learning in asynchronous
learning networks, Paper presented at the WebNet 98 World Conference of the WWW,
Internet, and Intranet, Orlando, Florida.

Hmelo, C. E., & Evensen, D. H. (2000). Problem-based learning: Gaining insights
on learning interactions through multiple methods of inquiry. In D. H. Evensen & C. E.
Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions
(pp. 1-16) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of fi'eedom.
New York: Routledge.

186

Johnson, R W., & Johnson, R. T. (1978). Cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12 (1), 65-
95.

Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-
structured problem solving outcomes. Educational Technology: Research and
Development 45 (1), 65-95.

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M.
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (2nd ed., ). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design of a problem solving theory.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (4), 63-85.

Keegan, D. (1996). The foundations of distance education. London: Croom Helm.

Kitchen, D., & McDougall, D. (1999). Collaborative learning on the Internet.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27(3), 245-258.

Lebie, L., Rhoades, J. A., & McGrath, J. E. (1996). Interaction process in
computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Computer Supported Cooperative W ork, 4
(2-3), 127-152.

Lindemann, E. C. (1921). The community: An introduction to the study of
community leadership and organization. New York: Associated Press.

Lipnack, J ., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams people working across boundaries
with technology (2“d ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Maypole, J ., & Davies, T. G. (2001). Student's perceptions of constructivist
learning in a community college American history 11 survey college. Community College
Review, 29(2), 55-79.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide ( 2'“I ed). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Merrian, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education (2"d ed). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning
(2“l ed.). London: Kogan Page.

McConnell, D. (2002). Action research and distributed problem-based learning in
continuing professional education. Distance Education 23(1), 59-83.

187

McDonald, J ., & Gibson, C. C. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics and group
development in computer conferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education,
12(1), 7 -25.

McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (1998). Groups, technology, and time: Use of
computers for collaborative work. In R S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac,
F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and
research on small groups (Vol. 4, pp. 205-228). New York: Plenum Press.

McGuire, T.W., Kielsker, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated
discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 257-280.

McKnight, C. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions.
Educause Quarterly, 4.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education (2"d ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Cafferella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide (2“‘I ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Miller, J ., E., Trimbur, J., & Wilkes, J. M. (1994). Group dynamics:
Understanding group success and failure in collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth & S. J.
Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and eflective techniques
(pp. 33-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view.
Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

National Science Foundation & US. Department of Education (1996). Shaping
the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology. Washington DC: Report by the Advisory Committee to the
National Science Directorate for Education and Human Resources.

Newcomb, T. (1962). Student peer-group influence. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The
American college: A psychological and social interpretation of the higher learning. New
York: Wiley.

Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (2001). Student responses to collaborating and learning in
a web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1 7(1), 34-47.

188

O'Reilly, C. A., Williams, K. Y., & Barsade, S. (1998). Group demography and
innovation: Does diversity help? In D. Gruenfield (Ed), Composition (Vol. 1, pp. 183-
207). Stamford, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace:
Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education.
In G. Salmon & D. Perkins (Eds.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 111-198). New York:
Basic Books.

Phipps, R. & Merisotis, J. (1999). What ’s the difference? A review of
contemporary research on the eflectiveness of distance learning in higher education.
Report presented for The Institute of Higher Education.

Pratt, D. D., & Associates. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and
higher education. Malabar, Florida: Krieger.

Ragoonaden, K., & Bordeleau, P. (2000). Collaborative learning via the Internet.
Educational Technology & Society, 3(3).

Reeves, 3., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers,
television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.

Robey, D., Khoo, H., Khoo, M. & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-
functional virtual teams. Technical communication, 47(1), 51-66.

Rosser, S. V. (1997). Re-engineering female fi'iendly science. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Sage, S. M. (2000, April 24-28). the learning and teaching experiences in an
online problem-based learning course. Paper presented at the American Education
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Sage, S., Torp, LT. (1997). What does it take to become a teacher of problem-
based learning? Journal of Stafir Development v. 18 p. 32-6.

Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individual cognition: A dynamic
interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and
educational considerations. New York: Basic Books.

Saunders, N. G. (1998, October 14-17). Learning strategies for coping with

computer technology in a distance education classroom. Paper presented at the Mid-
Westem Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

189

Schemmer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs
and their role in learning. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and
instruction with text (pp. 25-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schrum, L. (1998). On-line education: A study of emerging pedagogy. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 78 (Summer), 53-62.

Sharan, S., Hertz-Lazarewitc, R., & Ackerman, Z. (1980). Academic achievement
of elementary school children in small groups vs. whole class interaction. Journal of
Experimental Education, 48 (125-129).

Sher, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Lengman.

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Cooperative learning and student achievement. In R. E.
Slavin (Ed), School and classroom organization (pp. 45-57). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sleeter, C., Grant, C. A. (2003). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
Approaches to race, class, and gender. (2"d ed). New York: J. Wiley U Sens.

Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding
conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco: The New Lexington
Press.

Sorg, J ., & McElhinney, J. H. (2000). A case study describing student-experiences

of learning in a context of synchronous computer-mediated communication in a distance
education environment (ERIC Document 447794).

Springer, L., & Stanne, M. A. & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group
learning on undergraduate in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research 69(1), 21-51.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in
organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.

Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction
of task type and technology on group perferrnance and member reactions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79(1), 87-97.

Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.

190

Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S., M, & Hendricksen, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams:
Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive,
12(3), 17-29.

Trimbur, J. (1989). Consensus and difference in collaborative learning. College
English 51(6), 602-616.

Unger, R. M. (1984). Passion: An essay on personality. New York: The Free
Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental
process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Web-based Cemrrrissien (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving
fiom promise to practice. Retrieved April 29, 2003 from
http://www.hpcnet.erg/webcemmissien Web address.

Wedemeyer, C. A. (1982). Learning at the back door: Reflections on non-
traditional learning in the lifespan. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and the first advocacy effects in
computer-mediated face-te-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Making Processes, 53, 352-3 80.

Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated
communication and social information: Statue salience and status difference. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(4), 1124-1151.

Wells, L. J. (1990). The group as a whole: A systemic socie-analytic perspective
on group relations. In J. Gillette and M. McCellem C. P. (Eds.), Groups in context: A
new perspective in group (p. 50-85). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

West, G. B. (1999). Teaching and technology in higher education: Changes and
challenges. Adult Learning, 10 (4), 16-18.

Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (2“d ed). Newbury
Park, CA.: Sage Publications.

191

‘4'

   

I1113:1111!!!“I