Sociocultural Learning in Globally Distributed Teams

(1)

Sociocultural Learning in Globally Distributed Teams

Doug Vogel, Robert Davison, Ronnie Shroff Dept. of Information Systems

City University of Hong Kong Kowloon, Hong Kong

Sajda Qureshi

Rotterdam School of Management Erasmus University

3000 DR Rotterdam The Netherlands

Abstract

Characteristics of the new millennium suggest that we give students the experience of working in multi-cultural distributed teams to prepare them for present and future organizational demands. In general, students respond positively to this type of learning activity. However, we know little in terms of what they are really learning, how to improve the environment in which that learning takes place and how to assess the improvements, if any. In this paper we use tenets of the sociocultural learning model to examine aspects of learning in culturally differentiated teams distributed on two continents using groupware for project support. We conclude that learning is taking place in a number of ways that makes relevant use of multi-cultural distributed teams and that our measurement instrument provides a basis for comparison across classes and technologies to assess whether we are improving the learning environment.

(2)

1. Introduction

In educational contexts, we seek to prepare students for present and future organizational demands. As such, characteristics of the new millennium suggest we give students the experience of working in multi-cultural distributed teams, especially when they cross disciplinary and national boundaries. In these learning environments, we are interested in how students from different cultures can work together effectively, not by establishing a common ground or adopting a particular culture, but by accommodating each other’s culture in a synergistic fashion. We tend, however, not to systematically assess whether such learning is occurring nor to question if there is value added that compensates for the extended efforts expended. Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) suggest a number of approaches to study learning in collaborative contexts. The sociocultural learning model has an especially good fit with attributes of multi-cultural distributed learning. In association with the tenets of the sociocultural model of learning, knowledge cannot be dissociated from the historical and cultural background of the learner (O’Loughlin, 1992). As such, it is important that students begin to construct meaning on their own terms and in their own interests within their own culture. Socioculturists are especially concerned that majority cultures should not force minority cultures into a common understanding. Rather, they feel that cultures should be respected and allowed to co-exist in the context of shared activities. This presents the opportunity for synergy that can be lost through the dominance of any particular culture.

Technology in general and groupware in particular provide a way to bridge distance without physically disrupting people and potentially enable synergy to emerge. We have a variety of collaborative technologies that have been shown to enable such experiences in classroom settings (e.g, Alavi, Yoo, and Vogel, 1997).

(3)

As we go globally beyond “here is what I did in my class” and explore the nature of sociocultural learning, a number of questions arise. Does sociocultural learning occur? What else occurs (or does not occur)? Can currently available technology stand up to the task? What are the changing roles (if any) of the instructor? Can we tell over time whether improvement is occurring. And finally, is it worth the effort?

In this paper we use tenets of the sociocultural learning model to examine aspects of learning in distributed team contexts. In the first instance, we use groupware technology to support teams of students from a single national region. In the second instance, we use the same technology and project structure but with students from two distinct cultures located on two continents. Comparisons and contrasts are made. Conclusions are drawn.

2. Background

If we view culture in a broad sense as patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, it is clear that distributed teams may be influenced by a number of perspectives. At the same time, we recognize that aspects of national, professional, and corporate culture may emerge as teams interact to solve problems. In short, culture may affect the way teams and their members work. This will become an increasingly important issue as multi-cultural teams become more commonplace. Indeed, culture has been studied from various perspectives. For example, the work of Hofstede (1991) has been widely circulated while Schon (1983) and Erez and Earley (1993) have extensively explored dimensions of culture in a variety of contexts.

The sociocultural learning model provides a backdrop against which to create an environment and examine the implications of team interactions. The root of the

(4)

sociocultural model is centered around the writings of Vygotsky (1978, 1986). As Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) note, “the sociocultural model is both an extension of and a reaction against some assumptions of constructivism.” Like constuctivism (e.g., Piaget, 1973), the sociocultural model recognizes knowledge as created (constructed) by each learner. However, rather than assuming, as does Piaget (1973) that the goal of learning is the formation of abstract concepts to represent reality, socioculturalists feel that knowledge cannot be dissociated from the historical and cultural background of the learner (O’Loughlin, 1992).

Many other researchers and scholars have disseminated their own research findings and documented theoretical foundations, pedagogical developments and instructional approaches to sociocultural learning building upon the work of Vygotsky (1978, 1986). For example, Wertsch (1991) argues that the means that we bring to bear in communicating and interpreting our experiences are necessarily culturally constituted. Reasoning is conceived to be an inherently social and cultural process of meaning making. Meaning making is not viewed as an isolated mental activity but as a joint product of the person and the mediating means, operating in a particular setting (O’Loughlin, 1992). The theoretical framework used in this study reflects upon the different adaptations, viewpoints and principles as they apply in an electronic environment. A set of constructs emerges upon examination of the sociocultural literature. These are elaborated in Appendix A.

!"Mediation: Social and individual psychological activity is influenced or mediated by the tools and signs in one’s sociocultural milieu (e.g., written language, maps, artwork, diagrams, computer screens, etc.).

(5)

!"Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD) refers to the distance between actual or independent problem solving and performance when provided with learning assistance from adults or more capable peers.

!"Internalization is the process of taking new information that was experienced or learned within a social context and developing the necessary skills or intellectual functions to independently apply the new knowledge and strategies.

!"Cognitive Apprenticeship refers to a socially interactive relationship and assumes that newcomer learners should be acculturated into an established community of practice by observing and participating on the periphery.

!"Assisted Learning: Because learning precedes development, effective instruction can provoke developmental growth or rouse new skills to life. As a result of this malleability of intelligence to instruction, teachers are vital in creating learning environments rich in meaning making and social negotiation activities.

!"Teleapprenticeship: As a result of advances in technology tools, there is a myriad of online learning environments that are mediated by experts, peers, mentors, teachers, and so on, to help learners and teachers build and share knowledge through access to specialized expertise and information.

!"Scaffolded Learning relates to the various forms of support or assistance provided to a learner by an expert or more capable peer that enables the learner to complete a task or solve a problem that would not have been possible without such support.

!"Intersubjectivity refers to a temporary shared collective reality among individuals. Conferencing and collaborative technologies can foster such shared space or situational understanding between learning participants that can help them

(6)

negotiate meaning, design new knowledge, and develop multiple problem-solving perspectives.

!"Activity Setting as Unit of Analysis: Sociocultural theorists argue that the proper unit of analysis for research should be the activity or word meaning. Specific circumstances of an event or activity are essential to understanding how people act in their attempt to reach their goals.

!"Distributed Intelligence in a Learning Community: Participation in a classroom is no longer didactic or transmissive, but a sophisticated instructional conversation. Though technology is vital here, it is but one resource of a learning community; other resources that should also be utilized include: experts, mentors, peers, curriculum/textbooks, teachers, self-reflection, assessment, parents, and the funds of capital within one’s local community.

If, as Vygotsky (1978) contended, student learning and development cannot be understood without reference to the social context, then it becomes essential to study the role of technology in a distributed environment. Such technology might offer new channels of communication and apprenticeship among students and learning participants of different cultural backgrounds, ability levels, and areas of expertise (Lave & Wenger, 1993). In fact, technology has been widely used to support a constructivist perspective of education (Jonassen, Peck and Wilson, 1999), and the use of collaborative technology to assist learning in classroom contexts (e.g. Alavi, 1994) and to link classes together, whether within a country (e.g., Alavi, Yoo, and Vogel, 1997) or between countries (e.g. Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1998) is increasingly common. A variety of technologies extending beyond e-mail are available to support distributed teams including videoconferencing and groupware.

(7)

Groupware has much to offer in the context of distributed team support. In general, Group Support Systems (GSS) seek to minimize potential process losses and maximize process gains. For example, process losses can include travel time, language difficulties, apprehension, air time fragmentation, attention blocking, failure to remember, conformance pressure, free riding, domination, information overload, co-ordination problems, incomplete use of information and incomplete task analysis. Process gains, on the other hand, can include more complete information, synergy, more robust evaluation, stimulation, buy-in and cultural learning (Nunamaker, et al., 1991). When teams are distributed, it becomes easier for individual cultures to remain intact and let technological support enable sharing and communicating. When properly configured in support of appropriate processes with minimal critical structure, collaborative technology can provide a degree of freedom in helping multi-cultural teams achieve synergy in being both effective and efficient. GSS, for example, are recognised as positively affecting knowledge acquisition (Kwok and Khalifa, 1998) and have been suggested to help combat “groupthink” (cf. Janis, 1972). There are, however, noted deficiencies. In general it is easy to support divergence but support for convergence is especially lacking. There is also a distinct lack of sense of presence in distributed settings, and frustrations with performance, reliability and integrating tools abound.

3. Research Approach

3.1 Subjects and Setting

In the first activity, the Hong Kong participants were 21 part time students with full time jobs as middle managers. The Global Accounting Information Systems course (IS5101) was offered to students at the City University of Hong Kong pursuing a

(8)

Master of Arts in International Accounting. The main objective of this course was to introduce students to the concept of Information Systems in organizations and global contexts with emphasis on accounting information system planning, application, evaluation and control.

The second activity, which commenced six weeks later, linked the 21 students from the IS5101 class in Hong Kong with 104 students from Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The Dutch participants were all full time upper level undergraduate students in Information Management. Their “Advanced Topics” course focused on managing information in organizations through the use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT). Its aim was to provide a working knowledge of the technological and organizational value of information systems. It is important to note that both groups of students used English as a second or third language.

3.2 Technology, Task and Procedure

An online web-based groupware (eRoom) (htttp://www.instinctive.com) was utilized to support students in their tasks. eRoom allowed students to work together at any time and in any place (e.g. chatting and brainstorming in group, making a group decision or voting, arranging and organizing meetings, keeping track and sharing of group’s files). Each team had a private team room as well as the opportunity to visit common spaces (e.g., the information resource center) and the ability to drag and drop material from a private team room to a public display area.

(9)

3.2.1 Task 1

In the first task, the students were given a scenario concerning the paper-based billing process used by a local accounting firm. This scenario was based on the experiences of one of the authors who acted as a consultant on the redevelopment of the same billing system. The students, working in groups of three, were told that they had to devise an action plan for the re-engineering and web-enabling of the billing process, presenting this action plan as a power point presentation for their boss - the CFO. The purpose of the project was to allow students an opportunity to share their knowledge and to constructively critique each other’s work improvements and new insights. There were two objectives for this exercise: (1) to give students the opportunity to apply a groupware application to their course; (2) to give students an opportunity for collaborative interpretation and critical reflection on their coursework.

3.2.2 Task 2

In the second task, each Hong Kong student was teamed with five Dutch students. Each of the 21 teams was given a task relating to the way in which teams function in a virtual organization drawn from a published list of important items related to managing IT in a global context (Tractinsky and Jarvenpaa, 1995). The students needed to discuss the task using the eRoom software tools, adapting their use of the tool to incorporate any activities that they wished to perform, e.g. brainstorming, polling, consensus formation, etc. Each group needed to produce a set of critical success factors (CSFs) for the virtual organization for their particular task. The most critical (one) success factor from each group was later extracted and voted upon by all students in both classes so as to rate the CSFs deemed most critical overall. By

(10)

collaborating with their team members overseas, the students gained experience in using eRoom within these distributed environments.

3.2 Instrument Development and Data Collection

The questionnaire developed in this study (see Appendices A and B) had 52 items that contributed to the 10 constructs. The instrument was administered to the students using a web-based GroupSystems survey. Sources of data included questionnaires and electronic transcripts captured in eRoom as well as open-ended student input and interaction observation (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Data Collection Procedures

Observations Questionnaires Documents

Participants: Participants: ERoom Notes:

!"Students (Hong Kong) Task 1 !"Students (Hong Kong) !"Action Plans !"Work space discussion • Students (Hong Kong) • Students (Netherlands) Task 2 !"Students (Hong Kong) !"Students (Netherlands) !"Critical Success Factors !"Poll results !"Work space discussion !"Information Resource Center feedback

Observational recording of the dynamics of group work was aimed at understanding the perspectives, attitudes and experiences of the respondents and gaining a vicarious understanding of the participants' online activities and interaction. Where appropriate, personal documents generated by respondents became part of the data. Examples of eRoom documents used in this study were (1) messages

(11)

posted by instructors; (2) entries posted by students; (3) messages between students and instructors; (4) the summaries of meetings in the eRoom discussion area.

4. Results

The questionnaire used in this study was developed from several sources, including instruments developed by other researchers and sociocultural literature noted in Appendix A. Content validity was addressed by drawing representative questions from a universal pool (Kerlinger, 1978). Discriminant validity was addressed by examining how the items underlying each construct loaded on different factors (cf. Weiss, 1970). Ninety nine of the 125 students responded to our questionnaire (79%). For the 41 items retained in the instrument (see Appendix B), an item-respondent ratio of 1:2.2 was achieved lying between 1:2 suggested by Guilford (1954) and 1:10 suggested by Nunnally (1978). To test the construct validity of items in the instrument, confirmatory factor analysis was performed and reliability of constructs assessed using Cronbach's (1951) alpha. The reliability levels of the constructs vary from 0.48 to 0.80. All ten constructs that we proposed have been validated with factor analysis but, in some cases, individual items were thrown out as they did not have loadings above the 0.5 level that we employed. See the Appendix for the instrument items, together with factor loadings, alphas and eigenvalues. In order to explore the results in a concise fashion, we have selected 12 of the 41 retained instrument items and propose to discuss how these items relate to the quality of work (an outcome measure) that students produced. The 12 items (M5, Z4, IN5, C2, C5, AL4, T3, T5, S3, IJ5, AS1, D4) detailed in Table 2 were selected as they have a high level of congruence with the objectives of the coursework.

(12)

Table 2: Agree-Disagree Scores (All scores are rounded %)

TOP 6 TEAMS Questions All

Students

Hong Kong Netherlands

A* N D A N D A N D

M5 Routing (moving documents through a pre-defined approval cycle) was an important function that strengthened the quality of the Critical Success Factors developed.

42 45 7 29 71 0 53 47 0

Z4 We managed to help each other in solving problems related to the project.

61 22 17 72 14 14 70 15 15 IN5 The eRoom project helped me to

effectively identify gaps in my

understanding and adapt to changes in the environment.

35 39 26 57 43 0 32 32 26

C2 The balance of control over task components and processes ensured that students were increasingly responsible for their own communication and learning.

65 28 7 86 14 0 74 10 16

C5 Learning is more effective if we discover it for ourselves, rather than being shown what to do.

80 15 5 43 43 14 85 15 0 AL4 Effective classroom instruc-tion helped

us to develop our cognitive skills and see different aspects of an issue.

58 28 14 86 14 0 50 33 17 T3 Online discussion provided a better

environment for open communication compared to face-to-face discussion.

17 22 61 43 57 0 18 6 76 T5 I recommend the use of eRoom for

other distributed project teams?

55 31 14 86 14 0 55 35 10 S3 The structure provided in eRoom was

adequate to facilitate an environment conducive to in-depth discussion.

39 29 32 43 57 0 37 37 26 IJ5 The eRoom project helped me to utilise

prior knowledge to understand new experiences and apply course experiences to build new knowledge.

57 33 10 100 0 0 63 32 5

AS1 The project was adequately structured for us to communicate effectively through eRoom.

50 19 31 100 0 0 35 20 45 D4 Team members were able to

collaborate effectively using eRoom.

58 27 15 86 14 0 60 25 15 * A = Agree; N = Neutral; D = Disagree

Considering the responses in aggregate, the students have a rather mixed perception of the eRoom environment and associated learning structures - Table 2 summarizes the results here. 50% to 80% of students agreed or strongly agreed with eight of the items, but at the same time, a considerable minority (15%-45%)

(13)

expressed neutral views. Fully 80% of students agreed that learning is more effective when they discovered it for themselves (C5) - lending support to theories of constructivism - rather than being shown what to do, and 65% agreed that we achieved an appropriate balance of control over task components and processes (C2), ensuring that students were increasingly responsible for their own communication and learning. Related to these two items, 61% agreed that they managed to help one another in solving project-related problems (Z4). Disagreement was generally muted, with scores below 15%, but two exceptions stand out. 61% of students indicated disagreement that online discussion provided a better environment for open communication compared with face to face discussion (T3), suggesting that the inconvenience of communicating across a six-hour time difference was considerable and that it was little ameliorated by the use of eRoom. Similarly, 32% of students disagreed that eRoom's strucure was adequate to facilitate an environment conducive to in-depth discussion (S3) - again, a reaction against the dispersed mode of communication that was imposed on the students.

If we look at the responses of the students from the six teams whose coursework was rated most highly (A or A+), and further break down by country, additional findings emerge. For the Hong Kong team members, the responses tend to be positive, with minimal disagreement, though at times there are very high levels of "neutral" results. It is interesting to note, for example that the HK students had a markedly lower level of agreement (43%) with the suggestion that learning is more effective if done by oneself, rather than being shown what to do (C5) - compared with the responses as a whole (80%) and compared to their Dutch team members (85%). This is likely to be a product of the HK educational system, which has

(14)

traditionally emphasized rote learning and memorization - such ingrained values die hard!

Both the Hong Kong students (86%) and the Dutch students (55%) made a reasonably strong recommendation for other distributed teams to use eRoom in the future (T5). Hong Kong (72%) and Dutch (70%) students equally agreed that they had helped one another in solving project related problems (Z4) - indicating that the successful teams did communicate effectively through eRoom, despite any misgivings they may have had with the software. A major difference lies in the question of whether or not the projects were sufficiently structured for the students to communicate effectively through eRoom (AS1). While the Hong Kong students indicated unanimous (100%) agreement, only 35% of the Dutch students had this perception and 45% disagreed. The Hong Kong students had the benefit of prior experience in that they had used eRoom for their first study, whereas the Dutch students were only able to use it for this one, 10-day long project.

Allied to this finding is the question of whether online discussion provided a better environment for open communication than face-to-face discussion (T3). Fully 76% of the Dutch students disagreed with the suggestion, only 18% agreeing, whereas 43% of the Hong Kong students agreed and 57% were neutral, none disagreeing. Such a polarized response may be indicative of significantly different expectations, the Hong Kong students having already had several opportunities to engage in online discussion during class (e.g. the GSS sessions that we run) as well as for their first coursework, whereas the Dutch students lacked this experience. Nevertheless, responses also reveal a paradox since 60% of the Dutch students agreed that team members were able to communicate effectively with eRoom (D4).

(15)

5. Discussion

Our discussion reflects a combination of observational data, survey results and examination and assessment of project process interactions and output.

5.1 Impact on the students

In general the students reacted positively to the use of technology and the opportunity to interact internationally. Their enthusiasm and curiosity mixed to create an openness that yielded cooperation and encouraged higher levels of activity than typically encountered in class projects. The projects provided a high degree of realism and relevance that was genuinely appreciated, especially in the linkup with the Netherlands. The technology enabled a meeting place to exist that provided for cognitive diversity, where differing opinions could come together from a socio-cognitive conflict perspective (Doise and Mugny, 1984). In course feedback, students noted that “eRoom activities which allow discussion at any time and place with members with different culture and thinking” were particularly effective. Hong Kong students rated this (Activity Two in our study) as the highest of nine course activities while use of eRoom in exclusively Hong Kong teams (Activity One in our study) rated only 7th. Clearly the multi-cultural distributed team activity was well received.

The students did, however, experience difficulties, especially in the link to the Netherlands. Differences in study background created confusion for the teams when attempting to achieve a shared agreement on issues relating to the research questions. As one student noted, “I found that my team members were rather rude and impolite and hoped that they were not typical” while another noted “people speak English but not necessarily know what the others mean.” The timing of interactions between the two locations, for instance, caused much confusion and

(16)

frustration. As one student noted “it was frustrated when no response was received from the teammates.” The problems were compounded by students tending to work from home, office and the university, thus limiting the opportunity for synchronous interaction. Trust became an issue as teams interacted and sought to move towards consensus (cf. Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1998).

Considering what students really learned, we are certain that they experienced the ups and downs of the technology (e.g. “we can practically use the technology to complete a project and can assess the effectiveness and limitations of the technology based on this experience”), but that can be accomplished without linking half way around the world. Along with positive reaction from the questionnaire, student comments seem to best reflect the experience as “we can experience that country boundary could no longer be a barrier to achieve efficient communication and cross-country support” and the benefit of “the pooling of ideas, which are affected by different culture, language, experiences, age groups and jobs, to handle a project.” Learning took place as students with various opinions were able to effectively communicate with each other to bring about a diversity of knowledge as suggested by Huber (1991). In these situations, students changed from being passive recipients of knowledge to active participants in their own learning.

A high value added learning component of the cross continent linkup revolved around experimentation with tools and establishment of communication protocols. Students exhibited a collaborative spirit in trying tools in unconventional ways and eventually discovered unique approaches to take advantage of the tools to solve problems. Norms for group interaction emerged and rules of engagement took effect. Furthermore, parallel communication in a computer-mediated environment helped

(17)

encourage more contribution and participation from those who were quiet and uncomfortable to speak up in a classroom. As we look more closely at items within the constructs, we see positive indications that sociocultural learning that would not exist in the absence of multi-cultural distributed collaboration is occurring.

5.2 Impact on the faculty

In this project, we too experienced curiosity in our exploration of a new area, and enjoyed facilitating activities for students who openly expressed their satisfaction with the process. Such an environment enables us to bring other perspectives into the classroom and engage in activities that truly add educational value to faculty as well as students (Alavi, Yoo, and Vogel, 1997). The richness of interaction and diversity of perspectives crossing national borders is far greater than that achieved in traditional classrooms or in discussions with colleagues “down the hall”. Nevertheless, we experienced our share of difficulties, the technology not always performing as expected. Faculty roles also change. In international linkups, students learn from each other in a collaborative fashion with faculty facilitation. This can be advantageous and time saving (e.g., Johnson, Johnson and Smith, 1991) in the sense of not having the faculty in the center of conversations. However, facilitating in distributed classrooms requires significant process preparation with classes becoming less content focused and more dynamic (Aakhus, Adkins and Glynn, 1997). We concur with Jacques (1992) who argues that it is difficult for traditional instructors to adopt a facilitative role that involves careful listening and eliciting rather than giving their own knowledge.

(18)

5.3 Is the sociocultural learning model useful?

As we seek to learn from accumulated experience, we are trying to get beyond “what I did in my class this semester” to relate back to theory that begins to provide knowledge, not just success (or failure) stories. In this sense, the sociocultural learning model is useful, promoting a sustained focus that would otherwise be difficult to attain. To date we only have data from one linked-classroom experience. Our objective is to initiate systematic comparison of technologies and cultural groups across time and work to assess whether improvement is really occurring in the nature of the learning environment. At this point, we suspect critical success factors are beginning to emerge based around the constructs in the sociocultural literature identified in our instrument. Specifically:

!"Mediation seems to bring to the fore issues associated with learning transformation,

!"Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD) provides indicators of communication effectiveness over distance,

!"Internalization gives a sense of knowledge application, !"Cognitive Apprenticeship illustrates self-directed learning, !"Assisted Learning aligns with facilitation,

!"Teleapprenticeship indicates technology supported learning environment effectiveness,

!"Scaffolded Learning relates to the impact of external structuring, !"Intersubjectivity gives an indication of synergy among team members, !"Activity Setting as Unit of Analysis relates to activity setting comfort, and

!"Distributed Intelligence in a Learning Community gives a sense of knowledge management.

(19)

As we have opportunity to refine the instrument, it may be useful to move away from the language of the sociocultural literature toward terms more easily identified and along the lines of the emerging critical success factors. We plan to revise and reapply the instrument in a class this summer to further enhance our knowledge and form more concrete opinions as to the usefulness of the sociocultural learning model in the context of distributed, multi-cultural teams. Overall, we want to develop a sense of how to better create an environment within which learning is free to emerge without constraint but with minimal critical support and guidance. The sociocultural learning model constructs highlight aspects of the learning process and help in providing insight into how distributed learning can be better managed.

5.4 Study Limitations and Future Research

Given the exploratory nature of this research, the limitations are many, not the least of which is the lack of a validated instrument. Indeed, the instrument needs work and we are proceeding with that. A further limitation involves application of the study to only a single linked class involving students predominantly from two cultures. Certainly, other interesting findings will emerge and challenge our work to date as we study additional cultures in various contexts. Explaining changing patterns of interaction which are prevalent in globally distributed teams remains unanswered. The whole nature and measurement of culture is also a limitation of the current study. We tried to apply Hofstede’s VSM94 values survey but the results were so widely (and wildly) distributed within a supposed bounded single culture that we concluded that the five dimensions (Hofstede, 1991) were not useful for our research. Indeed, we are still in search of a good instrument to measure cultural dimensions of our student populations. Finally there are always issues of lack of

(20)

control when doing a study with student groups on two continents while simultaneously meeting course educational objectives.

6. Conclusion

In this paper we use tenets of the sociocultural learning model to examine aspects of learning in multi-cultural teams distributed on two continents. We conclude that elements of sociocultural learning have indeed occurred. We have gained insight into the patterns of interaction among cross-cultural distributed groups and resultant learning. With respect to the students, we began to see elements of sociocultural learning emerge through the various differentiated ways in which they collaboratively used the tools and developed process protocols. Student learning continued throughout the project and enthusiasm remained high. From an instructor perspective, learning occurred as we created the environment for the students and began to see the broader implications of virtual team support. A new form of relationship between students and instructors emerges where the focus is no longer on transfer of knowledge and information dissemination but on knowledge construction.

The overall question is whether it is worth the effort. It is usually easier to justify trying something once than making it an ongoing aspect of a course or program. Cost, coordination and operational use beyond a single instance requires consideration. Globally distributed team projects are difficult to sustain and require infrastructure support to leverage instructor input. Ma, Vogel, and Wagner (forthcoming) point out a number of the organizational issues that need to be addressed. On the whole, however, we think that these types of activities present sufficient added value to students and faculty to warrant expansion and

(21)

operationalization in educational programs. We feel, also, that the sociocultural learning model is a useful starting point for comparison of results across different cultures with varying technological support. Towards that end we expect to further refine our instrument and apply it routinely in our own courses.

7. References

Aakhus M., Adkins M., and Glynn M. "Layers of Learning: Facilitation in the Distributed Classroom", Proceedings of the 30th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, CD-ROM version, 1997.

Alavi M. "Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation",

Management Inforation Systems Quarterly, (18:2), 1994, 159-174.

Alavi, M., Yoo, Y. and Vogel, D. “Using Information Technology to Add Value to Management Education”, Academy of Management Journal (40:6), 1997, 1310-1333.

Cronbach, L.J. "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests",

Psychometrika, (16), 1951, 297-334.

Doise W. and Mugny, G. The Social Development of the Intellect, Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1984.

Erez, M. and Earley, P.C. Culture, Self-Identity, and Work, Oxford University Press: New York, 1993.

Guilford, J.P. Psychometric Methods, McGraw Hill: New York, 1954.

Hofstede, G. Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw Hill: London, 1991.

Huber, G. “Organization Learning: An Examination of the Contributing Process and the Literatures”, Organization Science, 2, 1991, 88-115.

Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of Behavioral Research, McGraw Hill: New York, 1978. Jacques D. Learning in Groups, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London, 1992.

Janis, I.L. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions

and Fiascoes, Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, 1972.

Jarvenpaa, S. and Leidner, D. “Communications and Trust in Global Virtual Teams”,

(22)

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Smith, K.A. Cooperative Learning: Increasing

College Faculty Instructional Productivity. The George Washington University,

Washington, 1991.

Jonassen, D., Peck, K. and Wilson, B. Learning with Technology: A Constructivist

Perspective, Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 1999.

Kwok, C.W.R. and Khalifa, M. "Effect of GSS on Knowledge Acquisition", Information

& Management, (34:6), 1998, 307-315.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Leidner, D.E. and Jarvenpaa, S.L. “The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management School Education: A Theoretical View”, Management Information

Systems Quarterly, (19:3), 1995, 265-291.

Ma, L., Vogel, D. and Wagner, C., "Will Virtual Education Initiatives Succeed?",

Information Technology and Management, forthcoming.

Nunamaker, J., Dennis, A., Valacich, J., Vogel, D. and George, J. "Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work", Communications of the ACM (34:7), 1991, 40 -61.

Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill: New York, 1978. O’Loughlin, M. “Rethinking Science Education: Beyond Piagetian Constructivism

Toward a Sociocultural Model of Teaching and Learning”, Journal of Research

in Science Teaching (29:8), 1972, 791-820.

Piaget, J. To Understand is to Invent: The Future of Education, Grossman: New York, 1973.

Schon, D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books: New York, 1983.

Tractinsky, N. and Jarvenpaa, S. “Information Systems Design Decisions in a Global Versus Domestic Context”, Management Information Systems Quarterly, (19:4), 1995, 507-534.

Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978.

Vygotsky, L. Thought and language (Rev. ed.). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1986. Weiss, D.J. "Factor Analysis in Counselling Research", Journal of Counselling

(23)

Wertsch, J. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1991.

Appendix A: Constructs of the Sociocultural Learning Model

Mediation. Individual learning and development is dependent on the institutions,

settings, and cultural artifacts in one’s social milieu. The tools and signs one is exposed to, therefore, influence or mediate new patterns of thought and mental functioning (Wertsch, 1991a). Software visualizations, electronic messages, WWW course homepages and electronically displayed information are mediational tools used in determining the impact of cognitive functioning.

Zone of Proximal Development. According to sociocultural theorists, an individual

acquires new mental functions and patterns of thought from the mediational assistance of tools, signs, and human scaffolding when it is offered within his or her zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Salomon, 1988; Wertsch, 1991a, 1991b). Vgotsky defined the ZPD as the distance between a child’s independent problem-solving level and that obtained under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Wertsch, 1985). A ZPD might be evident in online communities when students teach their peers about their particular area or locale (Harasim, 1993; Riel, 1990, 1993) as well as when the teaching comes directly from a computer tool in the form of thinking-related prompts and feedback mechanisms (Daiute & Dalton, 1988; Zellermayer, Salomon, Globerson, & Givon, 1991).

Internalization. Another important concept in Vygotsky’s theory is his idea that

(24)

this perspective, instruction is most effective when it is in a form of discussions or dialogues wherein learners can interact with peers or mentors who can challenge and scaffold their learning. As sociological researchers point out, instruction should take place in an environment in which learners use socially mediated and intellectual tools to achieve cognitive development (Rogoff, 1990; Salomon, 1993).

Cognitive Apprenticeship. In asserting that learning is most effective when it

approximates real-world situations or problem scenarios, sociocultural research on collaborative technology also draws on insights from cognitive apprenticeship theory (Collins, 1990; Collins, J. S. Brown, & Newman, 1989; Pea, 1993). As mentors negotiate and support novice learners through experiences suitable to their ZPD’s, they, in turn, gradually cede control of the task to the students (J. S. Brown et al., 1989). When the learning participants gradually assume greater task responsibility, they begin to internalize standard cultural practices (Rogoff, 1995). Such apprenticing situations emerge from computer-mediated communication environments, and additional understanding are needed regarding how unique cognitive strategies and processes displayed electronically between participants become internalized as independent problem-solving processes.

Assisted Learning. Not only is the environment transformed when adopting

sociocultural practices, but so, too, is the pedagogical role of the instructor. Clearly, the focus here is on assisting learning, not directing it (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). There are a range of techniques for teachers to assist in the learning process (e.g., modeling, coaching, scaffolding and fading, questioning, directly instructing, task structuring, management and feedback, and pushing students to explore, reflect, and

(25)

articulate ideas). When these means of assistance are woven together, the teaching-learning situation evolves into a rich “instructional conversation” (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990, p.196; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p.111).

Teleapprenticeship. Many universities are exploring computer supported

collaborative learning (CSCL) tool features that provide unprecedented student-student social interaction opportunities and cross-cultural activities and events (Harasim, 1990; Levin, Kim, & Riel, 1990; Riel, 1993). Now, online apprenticeships can involve experts and peers demonstrating ideas, posing questions, offering insights, and providing relevant information when needed. A series of CSCL breakthroughs have resulted in electronic file exchange, electronic libraries, whiteboards and opinion polls. Such tools and strategies collectively function to electronically apprentice and assist in student learning.

Scaffolded Instruction. In selecting scaffolded instruction, a mentor or guide

provides the learner with the support or assistance necessary to complete a task that would not have been completed without the help. Examples of this support might include prompts, hints, comments, explanations, questions, counter-examples, and suggestions. A learning scaffold may be embedded in an explicit request to include additional information or a more general question or comment intended to spur new idea linkages or course connections. In terms of scaffolded activities, collaborative technologies can offer opportunities for both peer and mentor electronic guidance and feedback that stimulate student discussion and internal reflection.

(26)

Intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity refers to a temporary shared collective

understanding of common framework among learning participants. As learners find common ground (Rogoff, 1990) or shared thoughts (Levine & Moreland, 1991), they can more easily exchange their ideas, build new knowledge, and negotiate meanings. Computer-conferencing and collaboration technologies, for instance, might encourage learners to consider alternative perspectives and viewpoints by providing a variety of tools such as electronic whiteboards, conferencing tools and opinion polls. These are the types of tools that need to be developed and tested to help culturally unaware students decenter from their own narrow points of view and engage in extensive dialogue with their peers. Such tools not only bring unique opportunities for enhancing intersubjectivity, but, in fact, provide a glimpse into the entire “activity” of electronic collaboration.

Activity Setting as Unit of Analysis. The concept of an activity setting was derived

from the sociocultural school of Vygotsky. Vygotsky emphasized the mediational role of signs in socially meaningful activity (Kozulin, 1986). As Cole (1985) further pointed out, analysis of human activity in real, not contrived settings, links individuals and social systems and provides insights into both cultural practices and individual higher order thinking. It is from activity settings that one can simultaneously begin to understand groups or individuals, products or processes, and cognitions or cultures. Similarly, Wertsch (1995) proposed using human action as the primary unit of analysis because it helps one understand the sociocultural context as well as the mental functioning of individuals operating within it.

(27)

Distributed Intelligence in a Learning Community. The current generation of

collaborative educational learning tools present unique opportunities for supporting and organizing human conversations and creating new communities of learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1996). Because human mental functioning is rooted in social relations and intellectual performance is distributed among members of a learning community, it is critical to begin to understand how electronic tools might enhance the collective intelligence of such a community.

References

Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Soloway, E., and Krajcik, J. "Learning with Peers: From Small Group Cooperation to Collaborative Communities", Educational

Researcher, (25:8), 1996, 43-46.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. "Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning", Educational Researcher, (18:1), 1989, 32-41.

Cole, M. "The Zone of Proximal Development: Where Culture and Cognition Create Each Other", in Wertsch, J.V. (Ed.), Culture, Communication, and Literacy:

Vygotskian Perspectives, Cambridge University Press: New York, 162-179, 1985.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S., and Newman, S.E. "Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing and Mathematics",. in Resnick, L. (Ed.), Knowing,

Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, Hillsdale, Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates: NJ, 453-494, 1989.

Collins, A. "Cognitive Apprenticeship and Instructional Technology", in Idol, L. and Jones, B.F. (Eds.), Educational Values and Cognitive Instruction: Implications for

Reform, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 1990.

Daiute, C. and Dalton, B. "Let’s Brighten It Up a Bit: Collaboration and Cognition in Writing", in Rafoth, B.A. and Rubin, D.L. (Eds.), The Social Construction of

(28)

Gallimore, R. and Tharp, R. "Teaching Mind in Society: Teaching, Schooling, and Literate Discourse", in Moll, L.C. (Ed.), Vygotsky in Education: Instructional

Implications of Sociohistorical Psychology, Cambridge University Press: New

York, 175-205, 1990.

Harasim, L.M. "Online Education: An Environment for Collaboration and Intellectual Amplification", in Harasim, L. (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a New

Environment, Praeger: New York, 39-64, 1990.

Harasim, L.M. "Networlds: Networks as a Social Space", in Harasim, L.M. (Ed.),

Global Networks, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 15-34, 1993.

Kozulin, A. "The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology: Vygotsky; His Disciples and Critics", American Psychologist, (41:3), 1986, 243-261.

Levin, J., Kim, H. and Riel, M. "Analyzing Instructional Interactions on Electronic Messaging Networks", in Harasim, L. (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a

New Environment, Praeger: New York, 185-213, 1990.

Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. "Culture and Socialization in Work Groups", in Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M. and Teasley, S.D. (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially

Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association: Washington, DC,

257-279, 1991.

Pea, R.D. "The Collaborative Visualization Project", Communications of the ACM, (36:5), 1993, 60-63.

Riel, M. "Cooperative Learning Across Classrooms in Electronic Learning Circles",

Instructional Science, (19), 1990, 445-466.

Riel, M. "Global Education through Learning Circles", in Harasim, L.M. (Ed.), Global

Networks, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 221-236, 1993.

Rogoff, B. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press: New York, 1990.

Rogoff, B. "Observing Sociocultural Activity: Participatory Appropriation, Guided Participation, and Apprenticeship", in Wertsch, J.V., Rio, P.D. and Alvarez, A. (Eds.), Sociocultural Studies of Mind, Cambridge University Press: New York, 139-164, 1995.

Saloman, G. "AI in Reverse: Computer Tools that Turn Cognitive", Journal of

(29)

Salomon, G. "On the Nature of Pedagogic Computer Tools", in Lajoie, S. and Derry, S. (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, 179-196, 1993.

Tharp, R., and Gallimore, R. Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and

Schooling in a Social Context. Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, MA,

1988.

Wertsch, J.V. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of the Mind, Harvard University Press : Cambridge, MA, 1985.

Wertsch, J.V. "A Sociocultural Approach to Socially Shared Cognition", in in Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M. and Teasley, S.D. (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared

Cognition, American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, 85-100, 1991a.

Wertsch, J.V. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1991b.

Wertsch, J.V. "The Need for Action in Sociocultural Research", in Wertsch, J.V., Rio, P.D. and Alvarez, A. (Eds.), Sociocultural Studies of Mind, Cambridge University Press: New York, 56-74, 1995.

Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T. and Givon, H. "Enhancing Writing-Related Metacognitions through a Computerized Writing Partner", American

(30)

Appendix B

1. Mediation

Abbrev .

Item Name & Question Number Factor

Loading M1 1. ERoom enabled team members to effectively edit

documents and different types of external files.

.668 M2 2. The drag and drop function of files (from the Windows

Desktop into eRoom) was a valuable tool to use in this project.

.724

M3 3. Real-time messaging (paging team members and holding

real-time discussions) was an important function that effectively enhanced the exchange of ideas in the project.

.656

M4 4. The polling function (voting and taking surveys on any

topic) effectively enabled team members to reach consensus. .766 M5 5. Routing (moving documents through a pre-defined

approval cycle) was an important function that strengthened the quality of the Critical Success Factors developed.

.488

Eigenvalue / % of variance explained 2.22 / 44.5%

Cronbach's Alpha .68

2. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Abbrev .

Item Name & Number & Question Number Factor Loading Z1 6. We used our meetings almost exclusively to discuss the

issues related to our projects or assignments.

Excluded Z2 7. We spent a good portion of our meetings socializing. .538 Z3 8. We often got involved in intensive discussions of the

designated topic or issues.

.774 Z4 9. We managed to help each other in solving problems

related to the project.

.787 Z5 10. The mix of IT-tools used during the project offered

adequate means of communication.

Excluded

(31)

3. Internalization

Abbrev .

Loading IN1 11. I was able to understand comments made by my team

members.

.567 IN2 12. I believe problems are best solved by people working

together to find the answers.

Excluded IN3 13. Harmony and cooperation guided our behavior during the

project.

.857 IN4 14. The needs of the group were put before the interests of

individuals.

.769 IN5 15. The eRoom project helped me to effectively identify gaps

in my understanding and adapt to changes in the environment.

.564

4. Cognitive Apprenticeship

Abbrev .

Loading C1 16. I found using eRoom to be stimulating. .809 C2 17. The balance of control over task components and

processes ensured that students were increasingly responsible for their own communication and learning.

.711

C3 18. Team members were willing to take responsibility for their

own learning and not rely on the instructor(s) for assistance.

Excluded C4 19. I am always learning from the world around me. Excluded C5 20. Learning is more effective if we discover it for ourselves,

rather than being shown what to do.

.636

5. Assisted Learning

Abbrev .

Loading A1 21. Positive responses were given to our suggestions. .587 A2 22. It is believed that everyone will perform well if given

appropriate support.

Excluded A3 23. Eroom improved the instructor's ability to communicate

methods and techniques.

.729 A4 24. Effective classroom instruction helped us to develop our

cognitive skills and see different aspects of an issue.

.789 A5 25. Classroom instruction helped us to effectively reflect upon

our own learning experience

.827

(32)

6. Teleapprenticeship

Abbrev .

Loading T1 26. The efficiency of my work on the project was improved

because I was able to use eRoom.

.778 T2 27. ERoom increased the quality of my on the project? .833 T3 28. Online discussion provided a better environment for open

communication compared to face-to-face discussion.

.656 T4 29. Online discussion supported equal participation by all

team members.

Excluded T5 30. I recommend the use of eRoom for other distributed

project teams?

.722

7. Scaffolded Learning

Abbrev .

Loading S1 31. Effective classroom instruction helped me to see different

aspects of an issue.

.752 S2 32. Effective classroom instruction contributed in improving

group and social skills.

.722 S3 33. The structure provided in eRoom was adequate to

facilitate an environment conducive to in-depth discussion.

.632 S4 34. The method of instruction helped facilitate effective

interaction & meaningful discussion.

.812 S5 35. Instruction included effectively using team-building

activities to encourage group cohesiveness (e.g. getting students to introduce themselves to each other, making photos available, etc.)

.778

(33)

8. Intersubjectivity

Abbrev .

Loading IJ1 36. The overall learning atmosphere stimulated my creativity

and interest in further investigation, research and creation.

.794 IJ2 37. Working together as a team and getting to know people

from another culture helped me to build new knowledge.

.731 IJ3 38. Being able to interact, discuss and cooperate with my

peers helped me to easily exchange ideas and consider alternative perspectives and viewpoints.

.554

IJ4 39. The electronic classroom challenged my creativity and

contributed to my overall motivation?

.799 IJ5 40. The eRoom project helped me to utilize prior knowledge to

understand new experiences and apply course experiences to build new knowledge.

.636

IJ6 41. The experience of applying technology in a collaborative

environment enhanced my learning.

.676

9. Activity Setting

Abbrev .

Loading AS1 42. The project was adequately structured for us to

communicate effectively through eRoom.

.852 AS2 43. The project contributed to my knowledge of working in

virtual teams.

Excluded AS3 44. During the project I had the feeling I was part of a global

team.

.774 AS4 45. The group activities were appropriate for remote

collaboration in this project.

.850 AS5 46. I believe it is important to always look for new ways to

improve my work.

Excluded

(34)

10. Distributed Intelligence

Abbrev .

Loading D1 47. The eRoom project helped me to effectively utilize

available learning resources and consider alternative solutions.

.791

D2 48. The eRoom project helped me to effectively express my

views?

.699 D3 49. Overall, the team members performed well? Excluded D4 50. Team members were able to collaborate effectively using

eRoom.

.705 D5 51. The group project contributed in enhancing my IT skills. .693 D6 52. Team members were looked upon as sources of

information and expertise.

E xcluded