The Effects of Gender Grouping in Online Collaborative Groups

William Warrick, PhD
College of Education and Human Development
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA USA
wwarrick@gmu.edu

Dawn Hathaway
College of Education and Human Development
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA USA
dhathawa@gmu.edu

Abstract: Online discussion boards provide students with a forum and framework within which they can interact and collaborate with other students and instructors. Meaningful dialogue in discussion boards depends on strong working relationships between group members. Attention should be paid, therefore, to the composition of collaborative groups online. The authors examined the effects of grouping based on gender in collaborative discussion groups during a 10-week, Web-Based Learning course. Specifically, this study focused on how gender grouping impacted the quality of products produced, the patterns of communication seen in the group online discussions, and the attitudes and beliefs of the students related to online learning.

Introduction

A number of university instructors are leveraging the collaborative aspects of the asynchronous discussion board to augment their courses. This tool effectively supports human interaction over space and time (Bannan-Ritland, Bragg, & Collins, 2001) and forms the basis of learning communities. The concept of producing knowledge by collaborating in groups is essential to new learning paradigms (Harasim, 2000).

The initial focus of online learning research has been on the tools with which users interact. Online communication tools include email, chat, and discussion boards. These tools are often the sole means of communication among students enrolled in an online course and between students and their online instructors.

The online discussion board is a tool that gives users the opportunity to communicate asynchronously with members of a group. Using discussion boards, students and instructors are able to read and post messages that can be accessed and read at any time by other group members. One of the benefits of discussion boards is that its asynchronous nature gives students the opportunity to reflect on others’ postings before writing a response or comment. Thus, students have the ability to access the discussions, read postings, questions, or suggestions and then take the time to formulate responses to those postings and then post them at a later time.

The effective use of discussion boards in online courses relies on robust communication and interactions between the members of a group. Collaborative activities, shared goals, and common tasks provide the context for interaction, but without a strong working relationship, even the best designed courses will prove ineffectual. Therefore, it seems clear that we need to develop a greater understanding of the dynamics of online interactions in order to provide the optimum learning environment for our students. Social interactions are the foundations for the quality of communication within the learning community (Geer, 2001). There are a number of factors that can have an impact on the quality of social interaction.

One variable that has an observed effect on face-to-face interactions is gender. While there is a perceived notion that virtual environments bring a sense of democracy and equality to learning, recent research reports that gender accounts for differences in communication styles in the online discussions among students (Fahy, 2002) and gendered voices appear in online discussions (Markel, 2004). This suggests that when students are asked to complete projects collaboratively and virtually, the composition of the collaborative group matters and the role of gender in the dynamics of online group interactions warrants further study. Therefore, the problem of this study is to examine the effect of grouping by gender on learning, attitudes, and patterns of communication in an online course. A research methodology was designed to answer the following research questions:

What is the effect of gender grouping on learning?
What is the effect of gender grouping on efficacy of online learning?
What is the effect of gender grouping on patterns of communication?


Subjects

In the summer semester of 2005, thirty-four students enrolled in a graduate level course focusing on Web-based Learning. Of that number, nine of the students were male and twenty-five were female. Participants in this study were all practicing classroom teachers from various grade levels and content areas. They ranged in age from twenty-three to sixty years old with anywhere from two to twenty-five years experience.

Instruments

In order to assess students’ attitudes and beliefs concerning their learning and experiences during an online course, the Web-Based Learning Environment Inventory (WEBLEI) (Chang & Fisher, 2001) was given pre and post treatment. This instrument was developed and used to assess students’ perceptions of online learning and incorporates students’ usage pattern, or Access, (students’ access, convenience of materials), students’ learning attitudes, Response, (students’ participation and enjoyment), students’ learning process, Interaction, (level of activity and interactivity between student to student and student to lecturer) and academic factors, Results, (scope, layout, presentation, and links of the web-based learning materials) (Chang & Fisher, 2001).

The instrument consists of 31 questions related to the participant’s learning in a web-based environment. Participants answered each statement on a Likert scale with the following choices: 5 – Always; 4 – Often; 3 – Sometimes; 2 – Seldom; 1 – Never. The survey is divided into four sections – each addressing a different scale.

In order to assess the effects of gender grouping and collaboration on learning, individual Design Projects were evaluated using a researcher created rubric. The scores for individual students as well as research group means were compared using descriptive statistics.
To assess the effects of gender grouping on communication patterns within the research groups, the text of the groups’ interactions from selected weeks of the course representing discussion of content, collaboration on projects, general discussion of the course, and unrelated social interactions, was saved for content analysis. Themes and patterns in the communications were identified, coded, and discussed among the researchers in order to give insight into research questions related to patterns of communication.

Treatment

For this course, the students were entered into the Blackboard course management system. This system provided the context in which groups of students would communicate asynchronously using discussion boards. Using the discussion boards, students communicated within their groups, collaborated on projects, and discussed readings and examples of Web-based Activity Structures. The students were divided into seven groups of four or five each. Two of the groups were comprised of students of one gender - one female group and one male group. The two other research groups were comprised of two males and three females each. The remaining groups in the course were comprised of all females and were not part of the research.

The 10-week course of study was designed such that each week, students would access readings, view example web sites related to Web-Based Learning, and participate in group discussions about those readings. Each week, the groups were given a project or task to complete. At the conclusion of the course, students created a Design Project for use in their classroom.

Discussion board forums were created for each topic. The discussion topics were framed by the readings for the week. The goal of the discussions was to facilitate understandings of the readings, gain insight into other student’s impressions of the text, and prepare for online group activities that synthesized the readings. The groups also used the discussion board for completing assigned, collaborative projects. In addition, an ongoing forum was provided for each group to provide for social dialogue unrelated to course content.

Results

The first question of our study was, “What is the effect of gender grouping on learning?” In order to answer that question, researchers scored the final product for the course using a rubric. This final product was done individually and submitted to the instructor. Participants had the opportunity to discuss their project with others in their group, but the product was individual.

The Design Projects were scored by each researcher and mean scores for each of the participants were computed. These scores were then used to calculate the mean score for each of the four treatment groups.

The results show that the mean scores for the male and female groups were identical (m =18.4). The mean score for one of the mixed groups was comparable to that of the male and female groups (m=18.6). The mean score for the other mixed group was appreciably lower than that of the other three groups (m=14.8).

The second question of the study was, “What is the effect of gender grouping on efficacy of online learning?” In order to answer the question, the Web Based Learning Environment Instrument (WEBLEI) was given before the treatment and at the conclusion of the treatment. The means of the WEBLEI were analyzed to determine the differences between the three groups after the treatment. Group mean scores for each of the four subsections were calculated using SPSS software. The results of the computations are shown in table 2.

Table 2: Pre and Post Treatment WebLEI Mean Scores

The scores generally followed a predictable pattern. From the pre-treatment survey to the post-treatment, the scores typically increased. A few of the scores, however, invite closer inspection. Of particular note are the mean scores in the Response section. The Response section addressed the degree to which the participant feels enjoyment, confidence, accomplishment, success, frustration, or tedium with the online course. In three of the four treatment groups, we find a decrease in the mean scores from the pre to the post-treatment survey. Only the female group’s mean score increased.

Also worth noting is the fact that the scores for the male group in the Results section decreased while the scores for the other three groups either increased or remained the same.

The third question of our study was, “What is the effect of gender grouping on patterns of communication?” In order to answer this question, the transcripts for three of the discussion forums were printed for analysis. One forum concentrated on the discussion of readings and the synthesis of concepts, another on the completion of a group assignment, and a third on general forum for off-topic discussion. The researchers collaboratively analyzed the communications among the participants in the four groups.

The discussion patterns of the all-male group were characterized as focused and interactive. The members responded to the facilitator’s questions but also posed questions of their own.

Art: “What do you think? What structure would this fall under?”

In another example, a group member appealed to the entire group rather than the facilitator to get clarification on a concept presented in the readings.

Art: “Can anyone…help me out with a simple explanation?”

The men offered their opinion about the readings and connected the information with their own practices:

Ted: “As a physical education teacher, I have had a limited amount of opportunities to work with my students and the Internet. I did, however, do a webquest with one of my classes.”

The discussion forum included a synthesis project that reflected the group’s ideas about the readings on activity structures. The facilitator created a summary based on the interactive group discussions on the topic. He then posted the summary for the group to review and make recommendations for changes. The group provided additional ideas to the summary:

Ted: “The structures are curriculum based learning activities that focus students’ attention with problems…”
Art: “I think you hit on all the big topic. My final thoughts: …18 sections provide a framework for activities…Another big point was the question of Is it worth it?”

Therefore, while the facilitator was the leader in the final posting of the project, it was the efforts of the group that brought the project together by providing constructive feedback.
In the collaborative project, the facilitator simply introduced the project and the members took on the responsibilities for organizing the project:

Art: “I think we should first divide roles and responsibilities. I had an idea…”
Art: “To help us get organized, I think we should…”
George: “One of us could use our template from the spring…”
Ted: “How are we looking [in terms of the project we’ve created]? Do we have everything?”
Art: “Now who is going to be in charge of which link? What types of things do we want on each link?”

After collaborating on what needed to be done, the members did not wait to be assigned a section by the facilitator. Rather, each member decisively took on a part of the project.

George: “I can take the Telecommunications and Webquest headings.”
Ted: “I would like to take care of databases.”
Art: “I will take activity structures.”

The all-male group used the forum structures appropriately, staying on topic within each forum. The members used the forum designed for off topic discussions to share their common interests, life changes, events that were occurring at the time of the course, and support for each.

For the all-female group, the discussion pattern in the forums was characterized as flowing from the facilitator to the other group members with little interaction between members of the group. Among the female members, the facilitator held a leadership position, providing prompting questions, information about assignments, and the stamp of approval for project pieces completed by each member.

In the discussion forum dedicated to conversation about and synthesis of concepts in the readings, the facilitator posed questions about the readings and all of the members responded. The interaction was linear, with the participants building on the first response posted but the conversation strayed from the topic about how telecommunications activity structures can be used in the classroom:

Alice: “I’m not sure that activity structures deal with skills as the main criteria…it is more determined by ‘the unique combination of a particular group of students…teacher…classroom…school, community context.’
Barb: “I agree with you. The teachers around here have good ideas, but I can’t take them because of reasons of I have 6 or more kids then they do, or I have special ed who need more one on one…”
Melissa: “I agree with Barb. You really have to keep your student in mind when planning…”
Amy: “I have never had a situation more like that than this year. I have sixth graders who are reading on [a] 2nd grade level so obviously I can’t do everything other teachers with kids on the correct level can do.”

In this forum, the group synthesis project was not finalized until the facilitator gained approval from members:
Alice: “Some of this sounds familiar. Go for it.”
Barb: “[S]ounds good!”
Amy: “They look good.”

In contrast to the all-male group, the members of the all-female group provided supportive words to the facilitator but no constructive feedback to each other.
In the discussion forum used for collaboration on a group project, the facilitator held the position of leader. During the dispersion of roles and responsibilities, the facilitator either assigned duties or gave permission to a member who requested a specific role:

Alice: “Can I do databases?”
Amy (facilitator): “I am doing graphics. Alice you can do databases”
Rachel: “If its okay with everyone, I can do websites.”
Amy (facilitator): “Websites would be fine.”

The group members also depended on the facilitator to answer questions and make the decisions about how the project was going to be structured:

Alice: “Amy, if you could give us an idea what format or how you picture it looking that would help.”
Barb: “I liked yours Melissa. I had questions for Amy so I just sent mine to her through email…”

Although group members asked for feedback on their individual pieces for the project, the responses were merely supportive comments:

Alice: “See my attachment and tell me what you think.”
Amy responded: “Your information looks good.”
Rachel responded: “Alice, Nice Job!”

Melissa: “This is what I came up with for video…what do you think?”
Alice responded: “I liked your page by the way.”
Barb responded: “I liked yours Melissa.”

These patterns of discussion indicated that the members worked more as individuals throughout this project once the facilitator tasked them with the assignment.
The all-female group had little use for the off-topic discussion forum that was made available to them. In an effort to introduce the forum to the group, the instructor posed a question about local bed and breakfasts. While some members responded, further initiative to keep the forum going by the group was non-existent. This forum was unstructured and operated without a designated leader and task. Little interaction by the group in this forum might be expected since the interactions in the facilitated and task-oriented forums revealed the importance of a facilitator to the group.

The mixed group discussion forums had many similarities to the all-male group. In the readings synthesis forum, the discussion was not dependent on the facilitator’s weekly questions and responses. In their synthesis responses, group members frequently referenced other member responses in the discussion by either re-emphasizing important points or adding to the statements:

Don: “I agree, Terry, maybe towards the end put in there ‘reinvent’ the lesson or ‘make it our own.’
Melissa: “Dorothy- Great Summary! I don’t think I can top that one…Piggybacking on your summary, I would say…”
Mary: “That’s a good idea. The physics teachers could also assign each student a ‘student mentor’…”

Unlike the same forum analyzed for the all-female group, the mixed group built upon each other’s discussion but stayed on topic as well as provided constructive feedback. In contrast to the all-male group and the all-female group, the mixed group lacked the sharing of personal experiences in their discussions of the topics.
The role of the facilitator in the forum discussions was similar to that in the all-male group. Interactions and discussion flowed not only from the facilitator to the group members but also between group members. In addition, group members did not specifically seek information and clarification from the facilitator only and group members took the initiative to respond to questions and to clarify tasks:

Terry: “So besides the lesson idea, we don’t have to put together anything as a group like a top idea or happy hour thing?
Don: “I don’t think so Terry. I think we’re supposed to post our lesson and comment on each others’ lessons for ideas/help…”

The responsibility for organizing the project was not placed in the hands of the facilitator in the mixed group. Group members took the initiative in choosing topics for the project. The group members shared their work for all to see and didn’t rely on only the facilitator for feedback.
In the off topic forum, the mixed group used this forum to discuss topics other than the course topics. However, the discussion remained centered on technology topics. There was a lack of sharing personal events or stories among the members as found in the all-male group.

Discussion/Conclusions

Working collaboratively has long been held as an effective and viable means for students to acquire concepts, share information, negotiate meanings. In traditional, face-to-face classes, group work is a means whereby students can work collaboratively on projects. Students enjoy, and are motivated by, the opportunity to work with peers. One hallmark of George Mason University’s Integration of Technology in Schools cohort program is the reliance on this type of collaborative environment. Students working together on projects which require them to share their ideas, ask questions, and support one another, have been shown to have higher motivation and deeper understanding of the content and concepts.

In an online environment, creating groups that work well collaboratively is somewhat more problematic. Without the visual and auditory cues that are integral to interactions in a face-to-face classroom, it becomes more difficult for students to develop working relationships with their fellow students. When creating opportunities for online group work, instructors must be aware of this and take steps to form groups in such a manner as to facilitate the process.
A number of factors must be taken into consideration when creating collaborative groups. This pilot study examined the effect of grouping by gender in an online collaborative environment. Groups were formed according to gender – one group consisted of all-males, one group consisted of all-females, and two groups were mixed male and female.
Our study sought to discover differences between the gender groups in the area of learning, students’ perceived efficacy of online learning, and patterns of interaction.

In terms of learning, the results of the study showed that three of the four groups, male, female, and one of the mixed groups, were remarkably similar in their mean scores for the design project. Only one of the mixed group’s scores was appreciably different from the others. This suggests that, in terms of learning, the grouping by gender had little effect on the students. Inasmuch as the design project was an individual assignment, this is not surprising. While the participants were able, and encouraged, to interact with their peers on the assignment, it was not required that they do so. It was discovered that generally, the participants did not seek help from their peers on the assignment.
The results also showed that the participants in all three types of groups appear to have learned the material and were able to use their knowledge to construct their own design for online learning, to the same degree. Only one group, a mixed group, appeared to have difficulties with the assignment. This is possibly due to factors unrelated to the grouping scheme.

In terms of efficacy, there were striking differences in certain results from the WEBLEI. The scores generally followed a predictable pattern. From the pre-treatment survey to the post-treatment, the scores typically increased. It is to be expected that at the conclusion of the treatment, the scores in the four domains would increase as the students become accustomed to the tool. Of particular note are the mean scores in the Response section. The Response section addresses the degree to which the participant feels enjoyment, confidence, accomplishment, success, frustration, or tedium with the online course. In three of the four treatment groups, we find a decrease in the mean scores from the pre to the post-treatment survey. Only the female group’s score increased. This result suggests that those in the female group became more satisfied with the online course as time went by. This is a very telling result and suggests that the female group alone was able to sustain a positive working relationship with their peers over the span of the course.

Also worth noting is the fact that the scores for the male group in the Results section decreased while the scores for the other three groups either increased or remained the same. The results subsection of the WEBLEI measures students’ perceptions of the clear objectives, planned activities, appropriate content, material design and layout, and logical structure of the online course. Thus, it is apparent that those in the male group felt that the structure, objectives, activities, and content did not meet their expectations. The patterns of communication among the all-male group indicated that the group was more ‘focused’ and interactive with each other and worked independent of a facilitator. This suggests that they set their own goals and schedule independent of the goals and structure of the course. It appears that this group was able to come together as a team as a team and felt that they were able to work together and didn’t feel the need for the structure and outline of the course as it was presented to them. Instead, it appears that they felt restricted by it.

In terms of communication patterns a difference that appeared among the three groups was in how the group members interacted with the facilitator. In the all-male group and the mixed group, the facilitator was a central figure only in providing initial information about weekly projects and summarizing the information provided by the group members. Individual members within these groups took initiative in organizing, supporting, and providing constructive feedback. The conversation flowed not only from the facilitator to group members, but between group members. At times group members took on the responsibility of the facilitator such as in clarifying information or organizing the group in a task.
In contrast, the discussion patterns found in the all-female group, was the flow of conversation from facilitator to group members. The group members looked to the facilitator for leadership. The facilitator provided the organization and the structure for the discussion forum and the execution of tasks.

The mixed group shared little in the way of personal stories. The female group shared professional stories but these interactions had the tendency to steer the group away from the discussion topic. The sharing of experiences both professional and personal was a key component in the discussion forums for the all-male group.

Markel (2004) wrote that it is a myth that all Internet communications and virtual participants are treated equally. Nor are their genders or linguistic indicators of social status masked. This was borne out in this exploratory study of gender specific groups.
While all groups in this study exhibited learning, there were differences in the various groups in terms of their perception of the efficacy of their online learning experience and in their patterns of communication. Evident, too, was a difference in the manner in which the groups interacted with the facilitator. Instructors of higher education courses, eager to harness the communication technologies of the Internet, must be sensitive to the fact that there are differences between the genders in terms of online communication patterns. When monitoring or assessing the communication and collaboration of online discussion groups, instructors must account for these differences and the way in which males and females perceive the role of the facilitator.

This study was exploratory in nature. The goal was to discover what, if any, differences would be found in the learning, perceptions of efficacy, and discussion patterns if discussion groups were based on gender.
There are a number of factors that limit the generalizability of this pilot study. Owing to the composition of the population from which we drew our sample, very few males were available to create all-male groups. A consequence of this was that we were not able to correct for personality types involved in the grouping. It is possible that dominant personalities skewed the results.

However, the results appear to reinforce the theories that gender is a factor in online communication and collaboration. The results of this study strongly suggest that new studies be undertaken on how gender affects patterns of communication and collaboration in online environments. Additional studies should include larger group sizes, larger samples of discussions for analysis and consideration of personality types within the groups. While learning occurred among the participants regardless of gender grouping, it is clear from our study that gender grouping had an effect on efficacy and discussion board interactions.

References

Bannan-Ritland, B., Bragg, W. III, & Collins, M. (2001). Linking theory, educational constructs an instructional strategy in web-based course development. Harvard University Fund for Instructional Technology Best Practice, Theory, and Methods Readings. Retrieved February 13, 2005, from http://www.provost.harvard.edu/factech/factech01/BannanWB.pdf

Chang, V., & Fisher, D. (2001, December). The validation and application of a new learning environment instrument to evaluate online learning in higher education. Paper presented at the meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Fremantle, Australia

Fahy, P. J. (2002). Epistolary and expository interaction patterns in a computer conference transcript. Journal of Distance Education. 17(1), 20-35.

Geer, R. (2001). The Necessity of Considering Cultural Influences in Online Collaborative Learning. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2001 (pp. 557-562). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. Internet and Higher Education, 3, 41-61.

Markel, S. (2004). Gendered voices: Provocateur in an on-line virtual conference course for in-service teachers. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teachers, Atlanta, GA.