CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
SciVerse ScienceDirect PfOCSCl ¡0
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 935 - 943
WCES 2012
The influence of online communication and Web-Based Collaboration Environments on group collaboration and
performance
Rodriguez-Donaire, Silvia a *, Barodzich, Iryna b
aTechnical University of Catalonia, UPC - ETSEIAT, C/ Colom, 11, Terrassa and 08222, Spain bIESE Business School, Avinguda Pearson, 21, Barcelona and 08034, Spain
Abstract
The aim of this research is to assess the effect of using online communication mechanisms such as chat and thread discussion on effectiveness of collaboration through Web-Based Collaborative Environment (WBCE). A previous pilot study with 12 students helped us to decide which type of online communication mechanisms we should use in the final experiment with 96 students and to redefine the activity design. The data were collected through two questionnaires, which tested students' personality and t heir perception of WBCEs and activities. This experiment constituted a significant part of the final grade in one Industrial Engineering course to encourage participation and performance. The results bring up insights on WBCEs effectiveness. Particularly, we have not found direct effect of use of online communication mechanisms on work group performance. Thus, ability of these mechanisms to promote social interaction and collaboration should be contextually dependent. Also, the relationship between the use of WBCEs and group performance may be influenced by the nature of experimental task.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu
Keywords: Wiki; Web-Based Collaborative Environment (WBCE); Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL); online communication tools; effectiveness; collaboration.
ELSEVIER
1. Introduction
Diverse communities (e.g. business, education) show growing interest in Web-Based Collaborative Environments (WBCEs). They are paying considerable attention to how Web2.0 technologies can change practices of and create new collaboration architecture for their business activities. However, there is a lack of knowledge about influence of WBCEs (e.g. Wiki) and online communication mechanisms (e.g. instant messaging, thread discussion) on effectiveness of collaboration (e.g. within groups).
Specifically, the aim of this research is to assess the effect of using online communication mechanisms such as chat and thread discussion on effectiveness of collaboration through such WBCEs as GoogleDocs (wiki platform).
* Rodriguez-Donaire, Silvia. Tel.: +34-615-21-1358 E-mail address: silvia.rodriguez-donaire@upc.com
1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.227
An experiment with 96 students conducted. A pilot study with 12 students helped us to decide which type of online communication mechanisms we should use in the final experiment and to redefine the activity design. The data were collected through two questionnaires, which have been answered at the beginning and at the end of the activity by each student individually. The questionnaires tested students' personality and their perception of web-based collaborative activities. Group performance in this activity constituted a significant part of the final grade in one Industrial Engineering course to encourage participation and performance.
In sum, the results bring up new insights on WBCEs effectiveness. Particularly, work group performance improves with use of online communication mechanisms as they promote social interaction and collaboration. However, the relationship between the use of WBCEs and group performance may be influenced by the nature of experimental task.
Our research develops as follows. Firstly, we present what WBCEs mean and which previous factors influence the effectiveness on Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). Secondly, we present the methodology used to design the conducted experiment by explaining the context of the experiment and its description. Thirdly, we describe the variables used to collect the data through two questionnaires and the model of our research. Fourthly, we discuss the model and the results extracted by the experiment conducted. Finally, we briefly sum up the results and suggest future related works.
2. Web-Based Collaboration Environments
A new generation of WBCEs such as social networking, sites, blogs, wikis, etc. has increased in popularity, availability, and performance in recent years. According to O'Reilly Media (2005), web-based collaborative tools facilitate a more socially connected web where everyone is able to communicate, participate, collaborate and add to and edit the information space (e.g. Ankolekar, Krotzsch, Tran and Vrandecic, 2008; Pachler and Daly, 2005; Rollett, Lux, Strohmaier, Dosinger and Tochtermann, 2007). We are going to refer to these tools as WBCEs that allow asynchronous and synchronous Distributed Learning Groups (DLGs).
Particularly, this research is focused on wikis - simple websites that anyone can edit -, which we include in the WBCEs. Wiki enables groups to jointly coordinate their effort to solve, create and share content for ad-hoc problems (Ioannau and Artino, 2009) with decentralized knowledge sources (Cheung, Lee, Ip and Wagner, 2005). This platform can house large and up-to-date knowledge repositories (Orlikowski and Iaconno, 2001) and enhance the creation and transmission of knowledge among users by means of dynamic interactions (Piccoli, Ahmad and Ives, 2001).
Currently, an increasingly interest is growing in web-based environments for collaboration. For instance, the Information System (IS) community is paying considerable attention on how these new WBCEs can change business practices (Teece, 2010) and create new internal participation architecture at businesses (McAfee, 2006). However, there is a poor knowledge about the online communication tools (i.e. instant messaging) effectiveness on collaboration by means of WBCEs. According to previous results (Orlikowski and Iaconno, 2001 and Piccoli, Ahmad and Ives, 2001), "wikis should include some form of discussion board or instant messaging to make communication accessible and come to a consensus on a topic". Since according to Leuf and Cunningham (2001), "the lack of discussions tools within the wiki tool seemed to be another factor that hindered collaboration".
According to these authors, an additional web-based communication tool will be necessary to allow task coordination to distribute the group tasks. However, Wagner (2004) said that the new wave of Internet technologies, called Web2.0 technologies or social media according to O'Reilly (2005), "are changing the way students: learn and create new ideas; share and communicate their knowledge and findings; and, interact and collaborate among them". Our resets suggest that in does not happen automatically and in-depth studies are necessary to reveal under what conditions use of new technologies has this effect.
2.1. Factors of effectiveness on virtual learning environments
Drawing on previous research (Kane and Fichman, 2009) in technology-mediated education an initial factors of effectiveness on Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) are provided. These determinants come from human and design dimensions.
The human dimension is related to social interactions. Factors like group size, group composition, nature of task, among others influence the effectiveness of collaborative learning. It is reinforced when is applied to ill-structure or complex task, because these situations increase the effectiveness of social construction of knowledge (Jonassen, 1991; 1994). Regarding on the design dimension is related to the group structure that encourages elaboration, questioning and rehearsal.
According to Kreijns, Kirschner and Jochems (2003), three approaches result in group members socially interacting: 1) cognitive by including describing, explaining, predicting, arguing, critiquing, evaluating, explaining and defining within the group learning tasks; 2) direct by using specific collaborative techniques that structure a task specific learning activity; and 3) conceptual by applying a set of conditions (positive interdependence, enhanced interaction, individual accountability, interpersonal and small-group skills and group processing) to stimulate/stress collaboration.
Additionally, according to Paroutis and Al Saleh (2009), there are four key factor of participation in Web 2.0 platform: trust, history, outcomes expectations and organizational or management support. Trust is referred to interpersonal trust that promote knowledge sharing in the aforementioned context: benevolence and competence (Abrams, Cross, Lesser and Levin 2003), history is referred to the organization inertia imposed by previous experience, outcomes expectations is referred to the expected consequences of one's own behaviour (Hsu, Ju, Yen and Chang 2007) and organizational or management support is referred to provide the necessary training and reward participation. The former three are related to the social interactions while the last one is related to the group structure.
Figure 1. Research mode
These previous detected factors drive us to think about a number of variables that assess these two dimensions (figure 1). These dimensions are seen as individual patterns of behavior (human dimension) and a group performance by means of WBCEs (design dimension). On one hand, referring to human dimension eleven variables are considered: introversion, extroversion, teamwork, flexibility, experience with technology, experience with e-collaborative tools, self-monitoring, power, self-esteem, need to belong and community exchange orientation. On the other hand, referring to design dimension eight variables are considered: partner's previous knowledge, preliminary group perception on results, team coordination effectiveness, team collaboration evaluation, web-based systems evaluation, activity complexity evaluation, group interpersonal skills and performance activity score.
3. Experiment design
3.1. Pilot experiment
In the pilot, 12 students in groups of 3 worked with the materials. Each group performed both designed exercises (text reconstruction and 100 words summary) using one of the available tools:
• Wiki only tool (no communication besides wiki will be used).
• Wiki plus email (considering that this is the most usual situation, in other words, the one that students face every day when they conduct a group task).
• Wiki plus thread discussion (an alternative to email that allows a classification and categorization of discussions, producing in theory a better knowledge construction when working at an asynchronous mode).
• Wiki plus instant messaging (although an instant messaging is less structured than a thread discussion, it is supposed that can produce better results in a synchronous activity, since the students are highly users. However, the students could be lost very easily).
A little more than two hours were used for this pilot experiment. The students participating in it were economically rewarded and were students from a similar level than the students taking place in the final test (first year engineering degree).
Additionally, three lecturers and two assistant students were in charge of the development and critical observation of this pilot.
The preliminary results showed in the pilot helped us to decide which type of online communication tools we will use in the final experiment and if any redefinition of the activity is necessary.
3.2. Pilot results and procedure adaptation
After assessing the teamwork activity performance, having analyzed the different surveys and interviews and putting the observer observations altogether, which were participating in the pilot, some changes were decided to include before the final experiment in order to improve the performance of the achieved results. The main adopted changes were:
• Change some questions of the personality test that may lead to confusion when answering them.
• Include additional questions in the activity survey in order to take into consideration specific situations and problems detected at the pilot level. Some other questions where included in order to let them explain the strategy they followed in arrange the group collaboration.
• Increase the level of difficulty of the first exercise. Initially this reconstruction exercise was based on a 13 sentences scientific text, randomly distributed in groups of 4 to 5 sentences to each student. At the final test 15 sentences were used (the initial 13 sentences plus 2 extra sentences that the group should discard). This increases the positive interdependencies, one key element on group collaboration and performance.
• Eliminate one of the communication systems. After the evaluation and final interview it become clear that thread discussions and email can bring to very similar results and, eliminating one of the systems it would be possible to enhance the sample for each of the remaining communication systems.
Additionally, another factor that drives us to take email scenario out of our experiment was that it was not integrated into the GoogleDocs.
• Include an additional observer in each face-to-face group. The role for this observer is defined as taking the minutes of each face-to-face meeting, thus giving extra information when assessing the specific collaborative performance of each group.
These modifications were developed during the prior days to the test scheduled date.
3.3. The experiment participants and communication tools used
The experiment have been conducted on June 2011 with all the students enrolled in the subject "Industrial Technologies" which is taught at the first year of the Industrial Engineering Degree.
180 students have been involved in the final experiment. These students were randomly assigned into 57 different groups:
• 16 groups working under the wiki only tool.
• 16 groups working under wiki plus thread discussion.
• 16 groups working under wiki plus instant messaging.
• 9 groups working face-to-face.
As a result, 96 students worked with WBCEs and 36 students worked under a traditional teamwork technique (Face-to-Face). Additionally, eight lecturers and three assistant students were acting as observers of the process.
3.4. Experiment material (Questionnaires)
To conduct the experiment the following material have been designed:
• Personality survey design. Mainly to evaluate the process of the experiment. Particularly, how participants social skills and attitudes behaves in front of team work and collaborative work. In total 76 specific questions were made at each personality survey to develop the factors (human dimension eleven variables). This survey was conducted just at the start of the activity, after a brief presentation on the exercise and the tools to be used.
• Cooperative exercise design. A two-part exercise has been developed. It has to be solved in groups of three students. The first part consists of the reconstruction of an original text about vacuum technology, which has been split into individual sentences randomly distributed among the three members of the group. After that, a 100 words summary of the text has also to be performed.
• Activity evaluation survey. Mainly to evaluate the process of the experiment. Particularly, how participants collaborative skills and attitudes behaves in front of team work by means of WBCEs. In total 78 specific questions were made at each activity survey to develop the factors (design dimension eight variables). This survey was conducted just at the end of the activity, after having solved the exercises.
• Performance evaluation rubric. It will have twofold objective: 1) an evaluative objective and 2) a design objective. Firstly, the rubric will help us to evaluate the achieved results of each group. Secondly, if the activity was well designed and which is the score performance in each group. The group performance will give us an inside about which tool is not showing significance in our study.
Additionally, different materials to explain how a wiki works and how to use each specific communication tool were also developed in the form of educational videos. In this way, every student could see as many times as they need the different aspects of the activity.
3.5. Performance evaluation rubrics
We relied both on objective and subjective measures to evaluate a group performance. The objective performance was measured according to several criteria reflecting the number of phrases ordered correctly (first exercise) and the number of key words incorporated in a summary (second exercise). Subjective performance evaluation was given by group members themselves.
The objective performance of the exercise (scoring) will be measured through two different rubrics (one for each exercise). In the first one (to evaluate how close the reconstructed text to the original one is) four parameters will be identified:
• Number of sentences that match exactly in the exact order. It will be considered when groups of three or more sentences have been presented. One point will be given for each sentence performing like that.
• One extra point will be given for each group of at least three sentences in which there is only one change in the correct order of the sentences (for instance, if instead of identifying sentences 4, 5 and 6, the group identifies 4, 6 and 5, or other slight changes).
• Maximum number of sentences in one group of sentences that is well reconstructed. Two points if there are three sentences, three points if there are four sentences, four points if there are five sentences and six points if more than five sentences have been well reconstructed in a same group.
• Up to two additional points for each fake sentence that has been correctly identified.
For the second exercise (summarizing in no more than 100 words the previous text), 45 key words have been identified by one expert when analyzing the original reconstructed text. Assessing of this part will give one point for every two words in the summarized text that match any of the previous 45 key words. A penalty of one point will be applied for every two extra words in the summary surpassing the figure of 100.
Subjective performance was evaluated by two measures: overall results and group effectiveness. Overall results measure has following items:
• I am satisfied with the work we have done in groups.
• I am satisfied with the progress made by my group. Group results were evaluated by single item:
• Working in a group allowed to achieve better results than if I would have done it individually.
3.6. Instruments for measuring human and design dimensions
To understand better possible relationship between type of collaborative environment and performance we also analyzed variables characterizing human and design dimensions. After reviewing the relevant literature we have identified following variables for analysis. Human dimension was analyzed by looking at satisfaction from working in a group and conflict (conflict of opinions, tensions). Design dimension was analyzed by looking at coordination difficulties, task division difficulties, communication (discussion, elaboration of ideas, lack of understanding), and satisfaction with technology (message exchange, overall satisfaction).
Table 1. Instruments for measuring human and design dimensions
Human dimension_
Satisfaction from working The experience of collaboration in my group was very pleasant. in a group I enjoyed interacting with this group.
Conflict 1 - Conflict of opinions
To what extent there were strong conflicting opinions in the group during the first part of the activity? To what extent there were strong conflicting opinions in the group during the second part of the activity? 2 - Tensions
To what extent there were tensions in the group during the first part of the activity? To what extent there were tensions in the group during the second part of the activity?
Design dimension_
Coordination difficulties My group has had difficulties with the coordination of activities.
Our group has had trouble coordinating the first part of the activity. Our group has had trouble coordinating the second part of activity. Task division difficulties To what extent did your group have difficulties with dividing tasks for the first part of the activity?
To what extent did your group have difficulties with dividing tasks for the second part of the activity? Communication 1 - Discussion
Do you think there was a lot discussion during the first part of the activity? Do you think there was a lot discussion during the second part of the activity? 2 - Elaboration of ideas
To what extent did your group has exchanged ideas during the activities?
To what extent you believe that your group has elaborated the views "in favour" and "against" during the
activities?
The communication methods used in my group have been effective.
3 - Lack of understanding
This group consists of people who do not understand each other.
Satisfaction with 1 — Message exchange
technology Do you think the messages exchanged through the communication tool used helped you to make progress in
the overall result?
2 — Overall satisfaction with technology
Do you think the communication tool helped to collaborate with your group always? [First part of the activity]
Do you think the communication tool helped to collaborate with your group always? [Second part of the
activity]
It was necessary to use a communication tool to perform the activity within the given time?
Recommend the use of GoogleDocs to a friend who has to work in group.
Overall, the experience of using GoogleDocs was fun.
My experience of using GoogleDocs was positive.
I shall use GoogleDocs in the future if I have the option.
I am satisfied with the experience of used GoogleDocs.
All measures except objective performance were measured on 7-point Likert scale. Prior to analysis groups' scores on objective performance measure were ranked ordered.
For each group a group score was calculated as the average of responses by group members. A scale composed of several items (several questions in a questionnaire) was calculated as the average of these items.
4. Results
Performance. Table 2 provide mean, variance, and results of F-test for scales measuring performance.
Table 2 Results of performance analysis
Measures of Mean (St.Dev.) F-test statistic
performance Face-to-Face Wiki Chat Forum (p- level)
Objective 24.06 (16.04) 32.69 (15.83) 26.53 (16.22) 30.56 (19.32) 0.69 (0.56)
1 — Overall results 2 — Group effectiveness 6.00 (0.58) 6.1 (0.50) Subjective 5.03 (1.46) 4.62 (1.25) 4.35 (1.42) 4.59 (1.28) 4.71 (1.27) 4.85 (1.54) 2.12 (0.11) 2.7* (0.06)
Although subjective evaluation of overall performance was higher in groups relying on face-to-face interactions the difference between four groups was not significant at 0.10 level.
However, usefulness of group work (as compared to individual work) was evaluated higher by students working face-to-face. The results of t-test comparing perception of value of working in a group by students working face-to-face to perception of value by students who used online collaborative tools are the following: comparing to students using Wiki t=9.58 (p=0.01), comparing to students using Chat t=8.71 (p=0.01), comparing to students using Forum t=4.27 (p=0.05).
There is no statistically significant difference between evaluations of usefulness of working in group by students who was using one of online collaboration tools (F=0.37 p=0.69)
Human Dimension. Table 3 provide mean, variance, and results of F-test for scales measuring satisfaction from working in a group and conflict.
Interestingly, groups did not exhibit statistically significant differences in variables characterizing human dimension. Satisfaction in general was evaluated quite high and extent of conflict quite low.
Table 3 Result of analysis of human dimension
Measures of human _
dimensions Face-to-Face
Mean (St.Dev.)_
Wiki Chat
F-test statistic (p- level)
Satisfaction from 5.59 (0.74) 4.71 (0.92) 4.48 (1.05) 4.83 (0.96) 2.09 (0.12)
working in a group_
Conflict
Conflict of opinions 3.17 (0.77) 2.39 (1.03) 2.55 (0.73) 2.52 (1.10) 1. 04 (0.38)
Conflict: tensions 2.01 (0.83) 2.00 (0.89) 2.07 (0.87) 2.15 (0.84) 0.07 (0.97)
Design dimension. Table 4 provide mean, variance, and results of F-test for scales measuring coordination difficulties, task division difficulties, communication and satisfaction with technology. With respect to variables characterizing design dimension we have found statistically significant differences for following variables: coordination difficulties (F=2.39 p=0.08), discussion (communication) (F=4.22 p=0.01), elaboration of ideas (communication) (F=3.11 p=0.04).
Groups relying on face-to-face interactions perceived less difficulty to coordinate their activity. They also discussed and elaborated their ideas more.
We did not found any statistically significant differences between groups for task division (difficulties), lack of understanding, and satisfaction with technology.
Table 4 Design Dimension
Measures of design Mean (St.Dev.) F-test statistic
dimension Face-to-Face Wiki Chat Forum (p- level)
Coordination difficulties 2.08 (0.98) 3.42 (1.27) 3.55 (1.15) 3.11 (1.31) 2.39* (0.08)
Task division difficulties 4.56 (2.03) 3.53 (1.23) 3.53 (0.73) 3.49 (1.28) 1.25 (0.3)
Communication
1 - Discussion 5.32 (0.98) 4.2 (0.72) 4.03 (0.64) 4.07 (0.97) 4.22*** (0.01)
2 - Elaboration of ideas 5.96 (0.87) 4.79 (0.90) 4.84 (0.67) 4.93 (1.00) 3.11** (0.04)
3 - Lack of understanding 1.48 (0.41) 1.97 (0.82) 2.45 (0.70) 1.99 (1.00) 2.12 (0.11)
1 — Message exchange 2 — Overall satisfaction Not applicable Not applicable Satisfaction with technology 3.97 (1.70) 5.2 (0.94) 4.78 (1.54) 4.65 (1.08) 4.8 (1.00) 4.58 (0.75) 2.39 (0.11) 0.09 (0.91)
5. Conclusions
The expected contribution of that paper pointed out that online communication mechanisms help to improve group performance as they improve social interactions. Unexpectedly, the pilot experiment conducted has some peculiarities that show that GoogleDoc environment alone is the better instrument to get high performance in group collaboration and performance. However neither of this results appeared in the final large-scale experiment. Contrary to our expectations either there were no differences between groups or were differences pointing in favor of face-to-face collaboration. One of the possible reasons for these results is the activity itself. The task students worked on collaboratively was quite simple and interdependency between students was artificially created. It will be interesting to repeat this experiment using more ambiguous task.
Better understanding of conditions under which collaborative tools can promote more and better interaction between participants is necessary.
Our research concerns with very specific question and this is just a first step forward to understanding how and why collaborative skills (or potential, or capacity) can be enhanced by the use of WBCEs. In addition to direct implications for development of students' competencies WBCEs lend following opportunities for universities:
• Facilitate development among students such competencies as ability to autonomous learning, working in multi-task environments.
• Allow students to participate in collaborative projects around the world.
• Open possibility to enroll in courses and programmes online for those who cannot not do it in a traditional way.
• Lend opportunities to create inter-university networks and facilitate students' experience of working in multi-cultural environment.
• Allow universities to introduce rapidly changes in their curricular as well as create opportunities for universities and/or organizations to joint their resources and unique competencies to design tailor-made (for students, organizations) courses and programmes.
• Taking into account costs of the "in-house" development of collaborative platforms, it is important to mention the GoogleDocs - as one of the WBCEs engines - has traditional advantages. First, it is free and second, it rule out problems due to incompatibility of collaborative platforms between different institutions.
Further activities would be also the need to increase the number of online communication tools being used. Web-conferencing is one of the candidates that are under study at our school as far as an ever-growing demand of use of such technology has been detected in recent years.
The activity that has been developed and explained in this paper is a synchronous one (solving two medium complex exercises in a session of two hours in real time). A future research work would be related to check if more complex activities or extended in time activities would lead to different conclusions.
References
Ankolekar A., Krotzsch M., Tran T. & Vrandecic D. 2008. The two cultures: mashing up Web 2.0 and the semantic web. Web Semantics:
Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web. Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 70-5. Abrams L.C., Cross R., Lesser E. & Levin D.Z. 2003. 'Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing Networks. Academy of Management
Executive. Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 64-77. Cheung K., Lee F., Ip R. & Wagner C. 2005. The Development of successful on-line communities. International Journal of the Computer, the
Internet, and Management. Vol 13, num. 1, pp. 71-89. Hsu M.H., Ju T.L., Yen C.H. & Chang C.M. 2007. Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: the relationship between trust, self-
efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 153-69. Ioannau A. & Artino, A.R. 2009. Wiki and Threaded Discussion for Online Collaborative Activities: Students' Percqjtions and Use. Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence. Vol. 1, Num. 1, pp. 97-106. Jonassen D.H. 1991. Context in everything. Educational Technology. Vol. 31, Num.6, pp. 35-37. Jonassen D.H. 1994. Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology. Vol. 34, Num. 4, pp. 34-37.
Kane G.C. & Fichman R.G. 2009. The Shoemaker's Children: Using wikis for Information Systems Teaching, Research and Publication. MIS Quaterly. Vol. 33, num. 1, pp. 1-17.
Kreijns K., Kirschner P.A. & Jochems W. 2003. Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning
environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behaviour. Vol. 19, Num. 3, pp. 335-353. Leuf B. & Cunningham W. 2001. The Wiki way: Collaboration and Sharing on the Internet. MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 020171499X. McAfee A.P. 2006. Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. Sloan Management Review. Vol 47, num. 3, pp.21-28. O'Reilly T. 2005. "What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software", O'Reilly Media, available at:
www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228/ (accessed 1 March 2011). Orlikowski W.J. & Iaconno C.S. 2001. Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the 'IT' in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT
Artifact. Information Systems Research. Vol. 12, num. 2, pp. 121-134. Pachler N. & Daly C. 2005. Narrative and learning with Web 2.0 technologies: towards a research agenda. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 6-18.
Paroutis S. & Al Saleh A. 2009. Determinants of Knowledge Sharing using Web2.0 Technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. 13, No 4, pp. 52-63.
Piccoli G., Ahmad R. & Ives B. 2001. Web-based Virtual Learning Environments: A Research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of
Effectiveness in Basic IT Skills Training. MIS Quaterly. Vol. 25, num.4, pp. 401-426. Rollett H., Lux M., Strohmaier M., Dosinger G.G. & Tochtermann K. 2007. The Web 2.0 way of learning with technologies. International
Journal of Learning Technology. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 87-107. Teece D.J. 2010. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning. Vol. 43, No 2-3, pp. 172-194. Wagner C. 2004. Wiki: A Technology for Conversational Knowledge Management and Group Collaboration. Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol 13, num. 4, pp. 52-63.
