The English Teacher Vol.
XLIII (2) August 2014
FACTORS AFFECTING KNOWLEDGE SHARING AMONG
ESL UNDERGRADUATES IN COMPLETING
COLLABORATIVE WRITING TASKS USING WIKI AND
SKYPE
Yolanda Hiew
Putra University of Malaysia, Malaysia
(email: yhiew1@[Link])
Tan Bee Hoon
Putra University of Malaysia, Malaysia
(email: tanbh@[Link])
ABSTRACT
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has become increasingly necessary
in tertiary education as it supports collaborative learning among students. Hence,
interaction using social networks such as email, Facebook, Wiki and Skype,
provides a way for students to collaborate and share knowledge about their
studies outside the classroom. However, using CMC tools where English is used
as the medium of communication in completing collaborative writing tasks can
be a challenge to ESL students. Studies have explored the factors that affect
students’ participation and knowledge sharing in online collaborative learning
such as social presence, trust, conflict, mutual influence, cohesion, and team
leadership. Thus, this study aimed to find out which factors affect students’
knowledge sharing in online collaboration, and to identify which CMC tools
benefit or limit collaborative learning. Twenty five ESL undergraduate English
Language major students participated in the study. The data was collected
through a questionnaire distributed to students after they completed two project-
based writing tasks asynchronously on Wiki and synchronously on Skype. The
results of the study revealed that social presence and team leadership are
significantly affecting knowledge sharing through online collaborative learning,
and students’ participation in online interaction is highly related to social
presence and team leadership. Moreover, students indicated that Skype is more
beneficial for collaborative learning, though they implied that Wiki can improve
writing skills.
Keywords: online Interaction, collaborative learning, knowledge sharing, writing
skills
46
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
Introduction
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has become a necessity in tertiary
education as it supports collaborative learning. This technology also benefits
English language teaching and learning as it provides opportunities for ESL
students to communicate and write using the language. Online collaborative
learning involves sharing of knowledge among students, which is a crucial
process in team work. Students need to share their knowledge at hand and
construct new knowledge through reasoning, explanation, and reflecting from
different angles. Knowledge sharing can be described as sharing common
knowledge, individual beliefs and assumptions (Clark & Brennan, 1991), and it
can effectively and efficiently aid working and interacting. Team members
working in a group project need a shared understanding of each member,
content, and process (Mulder, 1999). In order to work or learn together, team
members also need to collaborate and share knowledge on what they are working
on, how they are working, and with whom they need to work. Indeed,
collaborative writing has become part of the assessment for undergraduates but
the inexperience of students in the process has made the writing difficult to
accomplish due to interpersonal conflict among team members (Chisholm,
1990). Moreover, it is possible that the use of new technologies may affect the
process of knowledge sharing for collaborative writing.
Besides, students view collaborative writing as a social activity which involves
knowledge construction with team members who can trust each other
(Spigelman, 2000). Collaborative writing occurs within discussion boards,
online chats, emails or wikis (Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs, 2012). Hunter
(2011) examined students’ discussion through Wiki and found that collaborative
writing can be established when the writers contribute more and less concern
with issues of authorship. With CMC technologies, “the number of projects
involving collaborative writing with three or more writers will grow in the
future” (Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs, 2012, p.92). Students learning through
CMC tools need support and guidance from their instructor the same way as they
are learning in the classroom. As English is used as the main language on the
Internet, students need to realise the importance of learning and using the
language for collaborative interaction, particularly writing. However, a search of
the literature reveals a number of social factors which need to be taken into
account when looking into knowledge sharing in online collaboration.
Some studies have explored the factors contributing to successful teamwork,
such as student’s trust and satisfaction (Mathieu et al., 2000; Johnson et al.,
2007; So & Brush, 2008), and that knowledge sharing has been emphasised as an
aspect positively affecting team effectiveness (Cannon & Edmondson, 2001).
47
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
Some of these factors that seem to have an effect on knowledge sharing in online
collaborative learning are looked into in the present study.
One of the factors contributing to effective teamwork is social presence. Social
presence has become known as a social and communication factor that is
particularly crucial to distance learners with their instructor and peers
(Gunawardena & Mclsaac, 2004). Social presence is defined as “an individual’s
ability to demonstrate his/her state of being in a virtual environment and so
signal his/her availability for interpersonal transactions” (Kehrwald, 2008, p.94).
Different types of communication media affect an individual’s perception of
social presence differently (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Hence, the debate
about social presence and communication media during the past three decades
indicates a change in focus from comparing media characteristics to relating the
dynamics of users’ experiences and perceptions (Shin, 2002). Weinel, Bannert,
Zumbach, Hoppe, and Malzahn (2011) reported that social presence may not
have an effect on collaboration; however, it may affect the students’ attitude
towards collaborating on certain tasks. Researchers in distance education have
also examined whether social presence is a critical factor affecting distance
students’ learning and recognised problems related to the lack of communication
cues and immediate responses (Tu & McIsaac, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003).
Furthermore, there is a lack of knowledge about the characteristics and effects of
social presence related to communication media and users (So & Brush, 2008).
Another factor is trust among team members. Mutual trust is defined as the
expectations shared by the team members that they will meet their commitments
to each other (Dasgupta, 1988). Increased levels of trust lead to a higher level of
knowledge sharing and constant communication exchange can build trust which
enhances students’ motivation to be involved in knowledge sharing (Anderson &
Narus, 1990; Ardichvili, 2003). Furthermore, trust is viewed as helping to
“improve the quality of dialogue and discussion and facilitate the sharing of
knowledge” (Ichijo, Krogh, & Kleine, 2000, p.200). Kahn (2008) revealed that
trust was developed among team members in successful online team
collaboration. With trust, team members felt safe to speak openly to their peers,
and confident that other members would work hard. In contrast, team members
that have failed to build trust did not believe in others’ intentions and doubted
each other’s competence. Besides, Rosen, Furst and Blackburn (2007) believed
that trust among group members plays a major role in the quantity and quality of
knowledge sharing within an online team, while Lee and Choi (2003)
demonstrated that trust can help to manage conflict. If conflict was
constructively dealt with, then exploring the disagreement and variances which
caused the conflict could stimulate knowledge creation and develop new ideas.
48
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
Team conflict affects collaborative learning online when members’ ideas and
perceptions on a task differ. Jehn et al. (1999) define conflict as disagreement
and divergence that occurs when team members possess different ideas,
opinions, goals, or information about the task. Most people consider conflict as a
bad thing and something best avoided, though conflict can indeed help manage
differences (Kahn, 2008). Nevertheless, there appears to be inconsistencies in
the literature concerning the impact of conflict on knowledge sharing. When
team members work together, they may have different opinions, interpretations
about and approaches to problem solving. Such difference may lead to further
expansion of disagreement through the negotiation of the different meanings
(Bossche, Seger, & Kirschner, 2006). Moreover, Panteli and Sockalingam
(2005) illustrated conflict as a ‘double-edged sword’. They claimed that in a
complex situation, if the disagreement and divergence in a team are poorly
understood and managed, then trust can be weakened. As a result, the
relationships among team members will be damaged and thus knowledge sharing
among team members will be a failure. Hence, certain behaviours such as social
loafing and free-riding (Kreijin, Kirschnner, & Jochems, 2003) were found to
contribute to team conflict. However, when the situation is well controlled,
conflict can strengthen relationships and trust, and enhance knowledge sharing.
Anderson and Narus (1990) define mutual influence as the action and ability of
team members that affect the interest of each other in completing tasks. It also
affects collaborative learning in online teamwork, and the level of learning is
largely dependent on the process of the students’ discussion, problem solving,
arguing, elaborating their viewpoints and listening to others’ viewpoints (Jucks
et al., 2003). Whipp and Chiarelli (2004) found that students “used the
continuous feedback of their peers to make judgments of their work” (p.15). In
addition, Lipponen et al. (2003) claim that students are particularly prone to
influence each other’s interest in a collaborative learning environment.
Consequently, cohesion is one of the most significant factors that affect
collaboration and knowledge sharing in a team. Team cohesion is defined as the
character and quality of the affective relationships and closeness among team
members (Mullen & Copper, 1994). Different types of cohesion were
distinguished, and the most popular two classifications were ‘task cohesion’ and
‘social cohesion’. In their study to identify the social and cognitive factors
affecting collaborative teamwork, Bossche, Segers and Kirschner (2006) found
that task cohesion had a direct relation to the increase of commonly shared
cognition. Moreover, task cohesion occurs when team members work together to
achieve a targeted result that may not be possible to accomplish through
individual effort (Tziner, 1982). On the other hand, research implies that CMC
decreases the opportunities for social integration, where in such environment
49
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
learners concentrate more on task related work and pay less attention to social-
emotional processes. As a result, online teams are more likely to be less
motivated than students working face-to-face due to lower level of cohesion in
an online learning environment (McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994).
Despite that, team leadership appears to be a determinant of team success
(Misiolek & Heckman, 2005). There are two types of leadership, namely task-
focused leadership and relationship-related leadership. Task-focused leadership
focuses on the task at hand, while relationship-related leadership improves team
cohesion (Yamaguchi, Bos, & Olson, 2002). Besides, in teams characterized by
cohesiveness, the leaders allow members to carry out each part of the project
based on their individual strengths (Ali, Pascoe & Warne, 2002). Nonetheless,
Curtis and Lawson (2001) observed that there are two forms of leadership within
online teams: leaders who made contributions such as organizing team work and
initiating activities or those who made greater contributions like giving help and
feedback. Alternatively, Zigurs (2003) proposed that in online learning teams,
the role of leadership may change among team members, where each member
may lead at certain points in the project based on their strengths. That means
team members shared the leadership role where the members would rotate as
team leader in different areas of the project or assignment. Thus, team members
value and appreciate each other more in shared leadership. The evaluation of
leadership in this study was adapted from Parker’s (1998) Team Leader
Assessment (TLA) concerning interpersonal behaviours, which include
communication, openness, support and encouragement.
Objectives of the study
Despite the factors mentioned that may affect knowledge sharing in online
collaborative learning, what motivates team members to continuously participate
in the knowledge sharing process is not fully understood. Studies have looked
into the relationship between these factors but have not examined the significant
effect of these factors on students’ knowledge sharing in online collaborative
learning. Therefore, this study intends to investigate the factors that have an
effect on students’ knowledge sharing in completing their group projects using
CMC tools. It aims to determine which factors significantly affect students’
sharing of knowledge through online collaboration using Wiki and Skype.
Methodology
This study focuses on identifying the significant relationships between social
factors and knowledge sharing in online collaborative learning. The student’s
profile questionnaire was distributed to survey demographic, language
background, computer and Internet skills, experience of online learning and
50
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
familiarity of CMC tools. The population consists of undergraduate students
enrolled in a full time programme majoring in English Language Study. The
total number of students was 25, with 4 males and 21 females. The nationalities
of the participants involved in this study include one Singaporean and one Thai,
while the rest were Malaysians. The ages of the participants ranged from 20 to
30 years. Only 12% of the students speak English as their first language while
88% speak English as their second language. Most of the students started
learning English during their primary education (52%) while others started when
they were in pre-school (48%). In terms of ICT skill, most students were
beginners to Wiki (60%) and Skype (52%) but advanced in using Facebook
(64%) and Email (68%). For those who have used social network for
communication, 64% of the students have used Wiki while 60% used Skype, and
all students were familiar with Facebook and Email. A majority of students in
the study have some experience in using CMC tools for online task (92%) before
taking this course, and most of them used Facebook (60.9%) and Email (21.7%)
for their tasks rather than Wiki (13%) and Skype (4.3%).
The students were assigned to groups of 4 to 5 members to work together to
complete their project-based tasks entirely through online interaction. They were
required to use only English language in their text-conversations. There were 6
groups altogether where one group has five members while the rest have four
members in a group. There were two assignments for the groups to work on
throughout the semester of 14 weeks. Each group had to discuss the first and
second assignments with their members entirely online asynchronously on Wiki
and synchronously on Skype, respectively. Upon forming a team, each group
was required to nominate and agree on a team leader unanimously.
The approach of the study is quantitative and qualitative. A set of questionnaires
was used for data collection. The items in the questionnaire seek to answer ‘the
social factors significantly affecting students’ collaborative knowledge sharing in
Wiki and Skype’. A five-point Likert Scale with a 52-item questionnaire was
adapted from previous studies (e.g. Chang & Bordia, 2001; Jehn et al, 1999;
Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Lipponen et al, 2003; Tu, 2002; Parker, 1998;
Srivastava et al, 2006) to investigate student knowledge sharing through online
collaborative learning using CMC tools. These items were divided into eight
sections in order to gain more specific information on the social factors that may
affect knowledge sharing through online collaborative learning, which include
(A) Social Presence, (B) Mutual Trust, (C) Team Conflict, (D) Mutual Influence,
(E) Team Cohesion, (F) Team Leadership, (G) Knowledge Sharing, and (H)
Personal Comments. From the 52 items, only one item in the last section was an
open-ended question asking for student comments about their online teamwork
concerning the benefits and limitations of using Wiki and Skype. To analyse the
51
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
quantitative data, all statistical methods including normality and homogeneity
test, one sample t-test and multiple linear regressions were done using SPSS
Version 21. The qualitative data from the open-ended item was analysed to
complement the quantitative data for in-depth understanding of the relationships.
Thus, the students’ comments on the benefits and limitations of Wiki and Skype
for group tasks were categorised accordingly.
Results and Discussion
The findings are based on the Knowledge Sharing in Online Collaborative
Learning Questionnaire. The items in the questionnaire seek to answer the
‘social factors that are associated with knowledge sharing in Wiki and Skype’.
For all dimensions including social presence, mutual trust, team conflict, mutual
influence, team cohesion and team leader, the mean scores of related items were
calculated and used for t-test and regression analysis. The following sections
present the quantitative and qualitative results.
Quantitative Data Analysis and Discussion
Table 1 provides the means and standard deviations of each dimension. These
were computed based on the mean in the Likert scale (1-5) and all dimensions
were compared to the mean of scale (3) using the one-sample t-test. Thus, the
results revealed that all variables were significantly different with the mean of
scale (3) and it can be concluded that all the dimensions were at a high level
among respondents. For instance, the mean score for social presence was the
highest at 4.27 followed by team cohesion 4.19 and team leader 4.16. The
lowest mean score was team conflict at 3.60.
Table 1
Means and standard deviations of social factors
Std. p
Minimum Maximum Mean t
Deviation value
Social
3.10 5 4.27 0.56 11.23 <0.01
Presence
Mutual
1.25 5 3.91 0.99 4.56 <0.01
Trust
Team
1.25 5 3.60 1.12 2.69 <0.05
Conflict
Mutual
3.00 5 3.98 0.52 6.94 <0.01
Influence
Team
2.00 5 4.19 0.86 8.28 <0.01
Cohesion
52
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
Team
1.89 5 4.16 0.70 9.21 <0.01
Leadership
Table 2
The model summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
R R Square
Square the Estimate
Model 0.677 a 0.458 0.406 0.543
a. Predictors: (Constant), team leadership, social presence
An R-square value of 0.458 implies that the two-predictor model explained about
45.8% of the variance in knowledge sharing (see Table 2). Based on the reported
value of the F-statistic (f= 8.869, p< 0.05), the model fits the data. This means
that the slope of the estimated linear regression model line was not equal to zero,
thus confirming that there was a linear relationship between knowledge sharing
and the two predictor variables – social presence and team leadership.
Table 3
Regression coefficients of social factors on knowledge sharing
Unstandardized Standardized
B Std. Error Beta t P value
(Constant) -0.424 1.112 -0.382 0.707
Team Leadership 0.661 0.225 0.492 2.939 0.008
Social Presence 0.429 0.206 0.348 2.082 0.050
In the multiple regression models, team leadership and social presence
dimensions were set as the independent variables and knowledge sharing was
considered as the dependent variable. Standardized regression coefficients are
presented in Table 3 to explain the importance of the two predictors (independent
variables) in predicting knowledge sharing. An independent variable with a high
beta coefficient is highly important in contributing to the prediction of the
criterion variable. Based on the beta values obtained, the beta coefficient for
team leadership was 0.492 and social presence was 0.348. This means that team
leadership has a higher power relatively than social presence in predicting
knowledge sharing. Thus, the results are significant for team leadership and
social presence.
53
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
Table 4
Correlation of social factors on knowledge sharing
Knowledge Social Mutual Team Team Mutual
Sharing Presence Trust Conflict Cohesion Influence
Social
.488*
Presence
Mutual
0.389 .553**
Trust
Team
-0.018 -0.148 -.432*
Conflict
Team
0.257 0.351 .727** -0.225
Cohesion
Mutual
0.27 0.313 0.338 -0.122 0.275
Influence
Team
.475* 0.294 .422* -0.1 74 .538** .603**
Leadership
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The Pearson correlation method was used to determine whether associations
exist among social factors and Knowledge Sharing. The result in Table 4 shows
there is a positive and significant relationship between Social Presence and
Knowledge Sharing (r = 0.488, p<0.05) and also between Team leadership and
Knowledge Sharing (r = 0.475, p<0.05). According to Sheskin (2003),
correlation coefficient (r) between 0.3 – 0.7 is a moderate relationship. For this
study, a five percent (0.05) level was determined as the accepted level of
significance for statistical analysis.
The study demonstrates that social presence and team leadership significantly
affect knowledge sharing through online collaborative learning. Thus, students’
participation in online interaction is influenced by social presence and team
leadership. This implies that the type of CMC tools used among students can
also affect their online interaction in the process of task completion, and that a
team leader plays an important role in supporting team members in their group
work. In general, the positive results of the study suggest that using CMC tools
for interactions can enhance and engage students’ collaborative learning and
sharing of knowledge in completing their project-based writing tasks based on
the effectiveness/impact of two factors – social presence and effective team
leadership.
54
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
On the other hand, trust is one of the important factors in developing a sense of
collaborative learning. The means on mutual trust among team members in this
study was high and above average. Thus, if students do not feel their team
members are sincere and trustworthy, it can devastate their sense of
collaboration. Although group members can encourage each other to
communicate and interact in a polite manner, it has no guarantee that team
members will communicate honestly and sincerely with each other. Indeed,
students also expect their team members to be responsible and contribute to the
group. They understand that a team cannot easily achieve its objectives without
the effort and contribution of all its members. Individual responsibility is vital
for successful teamwork (Johnson & Johnson, 1996); however, this study
revealed that students sometimes have personal business or emergencies to take
care of. Therefore, it would be helpful if norms or rules for group collaboration
are put in place to encourage students to inform their team members ahead of
time or as soon as possible whenever they find they cannot complete their
assigned tasks or participate in the discussion at a specific time.
Furthermore, CMC is a promising technology to enhance teaching and learning
English language among ESL students in two ways; first, the medium of
communication through the Internet is English, thus students are required to use
the language for tasks discussion. Second, two language skills, reading and
writing can be acquired in text-conversations, and if video conference is adapted,
speaking and listening skills can be enhanced too. Discussion forums such as
Wikis are beneficial for collaborative writing tasks as they enable students to
write, review and revise on the platform anytime and anywhere at their own pace
and place. Language teachers may select suitable CMC tools, depending on the
type of task, to use for group discussion. Some students may be familiar with the
CMC tools and experienced in online learning, however, teachers need to set out
guidelines for students to comply with in their online collaborative learning.
Since good team leadership enables the team to share knowledge and progress, it
is vital to instruct the group to elect a team leader agreed upon by all members.
In addition, it is necessary to include text-conversations as part of the assessment
as this may encourage ESL students to participate in the discussion, and use
English excessively, thus improving their writing skills.
Qualitative Data Analysis and Discussion
All of the 25 participants answered the open-ended question. The responses
were extracted from the questionnaire and categorised according to the students’
comments on benefits and limitations of using Wiki and Skype. The summary in
Table 5 shows the benefits and limitations of Wiki, while Table 6 presents the
same for Skype. To highlight some of the benefits of Wiki, students commented
that they were able to share information and write properly in the discussion,
55
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
thus improve academic writing skills. This may be due to the fact that students
had flexible time to think before they posted the messages. They also viewed
Wiki as helpful in completing collaborative tasks. However, some of the
limitations of Wiki were that the students were unable to get immediate feedback
from their group members, some group members rarely log in to check
messages, and some technical problems were encountered. Thus, the delay in
students’ response in a discussion forum may de-motivate the students.
On the other hand, Skype is perceived as beneficial where it allows students to
discuss and solve problems immediately and the relationships among group
members were closer. The students also felt more casual when writing on Skype
and they interacted more actively in the discussion. Nevertheless, some of the
limitations of Skype were that students found it hard to take turns to talk when
there were more members in the discussion. This was due to some members
dominating the discussion, thus coordination of actual writing task became more
difficult.
When CMC is utilised in English language teaching and learning, it is necessary
for the teacher to teach and ensure that the students are familiar with the
technology before they start using it. This may include the function of the
webpage and where to seek help when they face technical problems. The teacher
may select the most suitable system based on the type of tasks. For example, if
the task concerns collaborative writing, then the asynchronous system may be
more suitable where group members can write on the webpage and edit their
work easily. For more social type of discussion where instant feedback is
needed, then the synchronous system would be more appropriate.
Table 5
Benefits and limitations of Wiki for collaboration
Benefits
• Flexible time in posting messages
• Formal
• Edit work online
• Share information
• Discussion easier, post anytime and respond
anytime
• Good experience discuss in a forum
• Can look at other groups’ work
• Improve academic writing skills
56
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
• Be able to write properly in the discussion
• Improve critical thinking skills
• Good for completing tasks
Limitations
• Restrictive/rigid
• Team leader deviates instructions
• Unreliability of members
• Technical problems/poor internet connection/slow
• Not user friendly
• Not enough privacy
• Not getting replies from members
• Immediate feedback not available
• Webpage has limited browsers to use as not all
browsers support Wikis
• Not convenient for discussion as cannot be done
at the same with all members
• Need to refresh the page to see the feedback
from member
• Not interactive enough/not real time
• Work may be delayed
• Some group members seldom login to check
Messages
• Not used to using Wiki in group work
Table 6
Benefits and limitations of Skype for collaboration
Benefits
• All group members can be present in the discussion
• Discussion is smooth and fast
• Members able to give opinions and express ideas
• Discuss and solve issues/problems immediately
• No need to login everyday to discuss
• Not stressful
• Become more discipline to involve in the discussion
• Easy to use
• Simple and clear instructions
• Group discussions become well and organized
• Gain lots of useful information at a time
57
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
• Responses received immediately/ instantly
• Task can be done sooner
• Know more about the group members
• Relationships among group members were closer
• More convenient as all members are in and no need to
wait for respond
• Interact more actively in discussion
• Lots of information can be shared and retrieved
• Informal and can use emoticons
• Easy to transfer files
• Easier to do work
• Excellent way of communication
• More comfortable
• Casual feeling when writing
• Can express more thoughts and emotions
Limitations
• Not easy finding the right time for every member
to login
• Depending on internet connection, hard to
download/upload files
• Not flexible as need to login at the same time
for discussion
• Hard to talk in turns when there are more members
• Slow internet connection
• Coordination of actual writing task is difficult
• Technical problems
• Hard to do assignment online
Conclusion
Collaborative learning involves knowledge sharing among ESL students, and
there are factors such as social presence, trust, influence, coherence, conflict, and
team leadership that could affect how students are willing to share their
knowledge with other members to enhance their collaborative writing task. The
present study posited that social presence and team leadership were significantly
associated with knowledge sharing among the group members in their
collaborative writing using CMC tools.
The use of CMC in collaborative learning can be a good strategy for English
teaching and learning to complement classroom learning. English courses at the
58
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
university are meant to facilitate ESL students to improve their language skills,
particularly academic writing. Thus, language teachers may implement online
collaborative learning for project-based tasks and encourage students to complete
their group work entirely online. This study reveals that the students perceived
Skype as having more strengths than Wiki in terms of convenience and ease of
use of the system and function. This may be due to the instant messages that
students received in the interaction and therefore decisions and tasks could be
done sooner. Future research in CMC may test on different types of tasks in
English language learning to determine the selection of online tools. In addition,
further research is needed to facilitate ESL students to learn the four language
skills, speaking, listening, reading and writing by way of video conferences and
text-conversations.
Although Wiki and Skype were used in the present study as CMC tools,
instructors may implement other available tools such as the Learning
Management System (LMS), Google Docs and Facebook for group projects.
The present study also proposes to include a team leader in group work in the
instruction. It is suggested that the instructor should be aware that some students
may feel they do most of the work, and some may feel they have nothing to
contribute, thus plan the course properly. Unlike face-to-face group discussion,
completing tasks through CMC provides the opportunity for the instructor to
check on the students’ learning process by moderating the conversations in the
discussion forum and chat room.
References
Ali, I. M., Pascoe, C. & Warne, L. (2002). Yet another role for team building and
work motivation enabler of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.
Paper presented for C2 Decision Making & Cognitive Analysis
Conference, 2002.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and
manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-
59.
Ardichvili, A. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual
knowledge sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 7(1), 64-77.
59
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
Bossche, P. V., Seger, M. & Kirschner. P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors
driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group
Research, 37(5), 490-521.
Cannon, M., & Edmondson, A. (2001). Confronting failure: antecedents and
consequences of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work
groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 161-177.
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group
cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32,
379-405.
Chisholm, R. M. (1990). Coping with the problems of collaborative writing. The
Writing Across the Curriculum Journal, 2, 90–108. Retrieved from
[Link]
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B.
Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on socially
shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M, J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34.
Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambatta (Ed.), Trust: Making
and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 42-72). New York: Blackwell
Publishing.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Mclsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. In D.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications
and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 355–395). Bloomington, IN: Association
for Educational Communications & Technology.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of
satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment.
American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–25.
Hunter, R. (2011). Erasing “property lines”: A collaborative notion of authorship
and textual ownership on a fan wiki. Computers and Composition: An
International Journal for Teachers of Writing, 28(1), 40–56.
Ichijo, K., Krogh, V. & Nonaka, K. (2000). Knowledge enablers. In: G. Krogh, J.
Roos, & D. Kleine, (Eds.), Knowledge in Firms: Understanding,
Managing and Measuring Knowledge, (pp.173-203). London: Sage
Publications.
Jarvanpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global
virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a
difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in
workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.
60
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of
technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology (pp. 785–812). London: MacMillan.
Johnson, T. E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., O’Connor, D. L., Khalil, M. K., & Huang, X.
(2007). Measuring sharedness of team related knowledge: Design and
validation of a shared mental model instrument. Human Resource
Development International, 10(4), 437-454.
Jucks, R., Paechter, M. R., & Tatar, D. G. (2003). Learning and collaboration in
online discourses. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research,
& Practice, 4(1), 117-142.
Kahn. W. A. (2008). The student’s guide to successful project teams. New York:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online
learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89-106.
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among
second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language
Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91-109.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for
social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning
environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human
Behavior, 19(3), 335-353.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and
organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical
investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179-
228.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of
participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported
collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487-509.
McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with
technology. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Hefferner, T. S., Salas, E. S., & Cannon-Bowers,
J. A. (2000). The Influence of shared mental models on team process and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273-283.
Misiolek, N. I., & Heckman, R. (2005). Patterns of emergent leadership in virtual
teams. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’05) (Vol. 1, pp. 49–59). Hawaii,
HA.: IEEE.
Mulder, I. (1999). Understanding technology mediated interaction processes.
Telematica Instituut. Retrieved 12 May 2012 at
[Link]
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
61
The English Teacher Vol. XLIII (2) August 2014
Panteli, N. & Sockalingam, S. (2005) Trust and conflict within virtual inter-
organizational alliances: a framework for facilitating knowledge sharing.
Decision Support System, 39, 599-617.
Parker, G. M., & Glenn, P. (1998). 25 Instruments for team building. Amherst,
MA: Human Resource Development Press.
Richardson, J. C. & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online
courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 7(1), 68–88.
Rosen, B., Furst, S. & Blackburn, R. (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge
sharing in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259-273.
Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of ‘Transactional
Presence’. Open Learning, 17(2), 121–137.
So, H. J., & Brush, T. J. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning,
social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment:
Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51, 318-336
Spigelman, C. (2000). Across property lines: Textual ownership in writing
groups. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in
management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and
performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239-1251.
Tu, C. H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning
environment. International Journal on e-Learning, 1(2), 34–45.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and
interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education,
16(3), 131–150.
Tziner, A. (1982). Differential effects of group cohesiveness types: a clarifying
overview. Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 227-239.
Weinel, M., Bannert, M., Zumbach, J., Hoppe, H. U., & Malzahn, N. (2011). A
closer look on social presence as a causing factor in computer-mediated
collaboration. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 513-521.
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self regulation in a web-based course: A
case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5-
22.
Yamaguchi, R., Bos, N., & Olson, J. (2002). Emergent leadership in small
groups using computer mediated communication. In Proceedings of
Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Boulder, Colorado,
(CSCL’02), (pp.138-143). New York: ACM Press.
Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity?
Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 339-351.
62