An exploratory study of class email and discussion database postings in two advanced IS undergraduate classes looks at the extent to which the students use these collaborative tools for organizational memory purposes. The instructor was trying to move communication away from email onto an Internet-based Lotus Notes discussion database (Domino) in order to provide a shared organizational memory that would benefit a greater number of students. Students working on group projects used both email and Domino for both teamwork and topical contributions to organizational memory at much higher levels then students working on individual projects

Soe, Louise

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)AMCIS 1999 Proceedings Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS)December 1999Collaborative Learning and IT-SupportedOrganizational MemoryLouise SoeCal Poly PomonaFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1999This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in AMCIS 1999 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationSoe, Louise, "Collaborative Learning and IT-Supported Organizational Memory" (1999). AMCIS 1999 Proceedings. 52.http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1999/52154Collaborative Learning and IT-Supported Organizational MemoryLouise L. Soe, Cal Poly Pomona, llsoe@csupomona.eduAbstractAn exploratory study of class email and discussiondatabase postings in two advanced IS undergraduateclasses looks at the extent to which the students use thesecollaborative tools for organizational memory purposes.The instructor was trying to move communication awayfrom email onto an Internet-based Lotus Notes discussiondatabase (Domino) in order to provide a sharedorganizational memory that would benefit a greaternumber of students. Students working on group projectsused both email and Domino for both teamwork andtopical contributions to organizational memory at muchhigher levels then students working on individualprojects.IntroductionIS faculty use collaborative information technologies(IT) to encourage classroom learning. IT providesstudents, who work and live in wider urban areas, accessto course material and to the ability to work onassignments, ask questions, share knowledge, and submitwork, even when they are not on campus. Delivery costsare lower and an electronic organizational memory isavailable to everyone. Yet, for those of us who embracethese collaborative tools, there is an on-going problem ofmotivating students to share information with each otherto build and use the organizational memory, even when itmight be advantageous for them. Our students often seemmotivated to use these tools only out of self-interest--when they have a question they want the instructor toanswer, or when they receive extrinsic rewards such aspoints toward grades. This paper discusses an exploratoryinvestigation that compares the use of two Internet-basedcollaborative tools, email and Domino discussiondatabases, in two advanced IS undergraduate classes,Rapid Systems Development (RAD), and MultimediaApplications on the Web (Multimedia).Both email and Domino are asynchronouscollaborative tools that support learning across distances(Alavi, Wheeler and Valacich, 1995; Leidner andJarvenpaa, 1995). According to Leidner and Jarvenpaa(1995), the collaborative model of learning is superior toindividual instruction in many ways (e.g., long-termretention, individual achievement, and the desire to learn).In this study the instructor tried to motivate collaborativelearning by discouraging individual email andencouraging contributions to a shared organizationalmemory on Domino. The advantages of the Dominoorganizational memory over email are several: accessanytime, anywhere; peer-to-peer sharing of informationwithout going through the instructor; and help fromexperts (experienced student assistants) outside theclassroom.This exploratory study has several short-termpurposes. The first purpose is practical--to observe andexplain through interpretive methods, the conditionsassociated with successful class use of IT-supportedorganizational memory. Understanding these conditionsmight help improve future attempts at collaborativelearning. The second purpose is to generate further ideasthat may lead to a more focused investigation ofcollaborative learning using IT-supported organizationalmemory.BackgroundResearch on organizational learning and collaborativetelelearning provides a conceptual literature ontechnology to support of the role of organizationalmemory in collaborative learning. This paper borrows thedefinition of organizational memory provided by Steinand Zwass (1995):  “the means by which knowledge fromthe past is brought to bear on present activities, thusresulting in higher or lower levels of organizationaleffectiveness” (p. 89). Measures of organizationaleffectiveness (Dhaliwal and Benbasat, 1996) couldinclude effects on behaviors (user acceptance as indicatedby levels of use), on learning (improved understanding),both of which may influence judgmental decision making(effectiveness and efficiency). This exploratory studylooks at effects on behavior in the categories (Stein andZwass 1995, p. 93) of “group/team memory” (i.e., “smallbusiness team supported across time and projects”) and“topical memory” (“accumulates answers on a targetedrange of topics”). The students in the study are assumedto have equal access to the technology and adequatecomputer experience to use the technology with relativeease.The DataThe sample in this study includes studentcontributions to organizational memory in the form ofemail messages and Domino postings from 3 sections of 2different classes (408 contributions from the instructorwere discarded). The classes each had assignments thatrequired email and Domino postings. All students had to155email the instructor during the first week of class tointroduce themselves. All students were introduced toDomino as the repository for organizational memoryduring the first week of class and were encouraged to postquestions and answer other students’ questions. Theinstructor gave extrinsic rewards for specific assignments(reports in RAD, written and critical thinking assignmentsin Multimedia), but did not reward group/team memory ortopical memory contributions, because earlier attemptsproduced inane, meaningless postings for the sake ofearning points.The RAD class included 19 students who, in teams of4 to 5, worked on a software development project andlearned methods of rapid application development andproject management. Emphasis was placed on groupprocesses, such as team formation, team roles, managingpeers, and task organization. The teams had to integratetheir subprojects, which required intra- and inter-teamcommunication and coordination. Teams frequentlyacquired a team email address from a free provider andsent the instructor copies of their inter-team and eventheir intra-team communications. Aside fromexaminations, most of the work in the class was submittedat the team level. A few individual reports were requiredon Domino, but most represented team effort. The RADclass communication produced 214 messages (142 emailmessages and 72 Domino postings; Table 1), for anaverage of 7.5 email and 3.8 Domino messages perparticipant. Only 20% of these contributions wererequired assignments. The RAD students produced41group/team email and 44 group/team Domino postings.They found both media useful in coordinatingsubprojects. The 74 topical email contributions included17 student questions and 57 contributions containinganswers or information. Their 10 topical Domino postingsincluded 7 questions and 3 answers.The Multimedia class included 2 merged sections witha combined total of 65 students and 5 “expert” studentassistants who volunteered in class and answeredquestions posted on Domino. Students in this class doindividual projects, but often need help because they learn3 relatively difficult multimedia applications. During thesecond half of the term, the students also post individualwritten assignments on Domino, as well as one groupassignment (approximately 5-6 students per group). Thetotal number of messages for this class was 979, of which794 were on Domino and 185 via email (Table 1), anaverage of 12.4 messages per participant. However 762(78%) of these contributions were required to fulfillassignments. Of the nonrequired ones, none weregroup/team memory contributions; 128 were questions(102 via email to the instructor, and 26 via Domino); and89 were answers or informational postings (36 email, 53Domino). Fourteen students posted questions on Dominoand 13 students and the 5 student assistants answeredquestions or posted information. Over 60% of theseanswers/informational postings were from studentassistants and one enrolled student. Thus, nonrequired useof Domino was very low in this class.Table 1. Types of ContributionsRAD MultimediaContribution Type Email Domino Total Email Domino Total TotalsRequired Contributions(individual & group)   27 18 45 47 715 762 807Group/Team Contributions   41 44 85 0 0 0 85Topical Contributions 74 10 84 138 79 217 301Totals 142 72 214 185 794 979 1193Average Contributions perparticipant7.5 3.8 11.3 2.6 11.3 12.4The FindingsWhat is there to learn from this exploratoryanalysis of class contributions concerning thetypes of use and levels of participation incontributing to organizational memory?156Not surprisingly, the team/group type usewas much higher in the class that was structuredaround a group project. The RAD studentsunderstood that their success depended on teamand class collaboration. RAD course contentemphasized best practices to facilitatecommunication and coordination of group work.This particular group of students discovered theusefulness of a Domino organizational memoryearly in their project. Students responsible forteam communication and students whocoordinated efforts across teams were heavyusers of Domino and expected other teams torefer to their messages for the latest projectinformation.The small size and relative cohesiveness ofthe RAD class (the result of team bonding)probably influenced its use of collaborativetechnologies, because students were able toapply social pressure on one another much moreeffectively than the instructor could. Severalmembers of this class were simultaneouslyengaged in job interviews and described to theclass the emphasis that employers placed on thetypes of IT-supported collaborative work theywere performing in this class.Despite the instructor’s attempts at socialinfluence in favor of Domino, the Multimediastudents were producing individual work andpreferred individual access to the instructor viaemail over group collaboration. Even thoughMultimedia students met in a classroom in whichthey worked together at collaborative work-stations to learn multimedia technologies, theywere not convinced of the value of collaborativelearning. Students appeared to lack the trustnecessary for collaborative learning. One studentindicated that he emailed questions to theinstructor because he did not trust studentanswers to questions on Domino.Future WorkMany factors can influence the success of IT-supported collaborative learning. Leidner andJarvenpaa (1995) discuss learning models thatare appropriate for different types ofcollaborative technologies. They suggest severaldifferent approaches for researching the problem.Possible avenues for future research mightinclude technology applications to supportsociocultural learning. Since many of the students atour university belong to ethnic minorities or arerecent immigrants, they might benefit from the use ofinformation technology to enable students to learn intheir own sociocultural environments in which theyfeel comfortable expressing their ideas. Thisapproach might be better for students earlier in theirstudies, however, since advanced students will beexpected to use collaborative technologies in their ITcareers that are not adapted to their socioculturalenvironments.Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) also indicate thatresearch is needed on the added value of technologyto learning models. Such a study would compare theeffectiveness of learning in classes that usedtechnology with similar classes that did not usetechnology. This approach would work if one couldmatch classes with the same course content andsimilar student characteristics.Another approach suggested by the same authorsis to look at variables that moderate the influence ofinformation technology on learning, such as coursecontent and student characteristics. The interpretiveresults of this study indicate that such an approach ispromising, since course content and studentcharacteristics seemed to influence behavior in theuse of collaborative technologies.ReferencesAlavi, M, B., Wheeler, C., and Valacich, J. S.“Collaborative Telelearning,” ManagementInformation Systems Quarterly, 19(3), 1995, pp. 293-312.Dhaliwal, J. S., and Benbasat. I. “The Use andEffects of Knowledge-based System Explanations:Theoretical Foundations and a Framework forEmpirical Evaluation,” Information SystemsResearch, 7(3), 1996, pp. 342-362.Leidner, D. E., and Jarvenpaa, S. L. “The Use ofInformation Technology to Enhance ManagementSchool Education: A Theoretical View,”Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19(3),1995, pp. 265-291.Stein, E. W., and Zwass, V. “ActualizingOrganizational Memory with Information Systems.”Information Systems Research, 6(2), 1995, pp. 85-117.

Collaborative Learning and IT-Supported Organizational Memory

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1409&amp;context=amcis1999

Collaborative Learning and IT-Supported Organizational Memory

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)