1.
Introduction
The Open University (OU) has some 220,000 students
on-line using e-mail and web sites. Many OU courses now use students
in small collaborative on-line teams (e-teams or virtual teams) to
produce work that is assessed as part of their course work. In this
collaborative work, students are dependent on each other and cannot
work solely as individuals. As part of the OU, the Open University
Business School (OUBS) uses collaborative on-line work extensively in
their courses with more than 30,000 students per year in over 30
countries world wide. Collaboration on-line is increasingly a
requisite of organisations sponsoring students with the OUBS. On-line
collaboration is becoming part of normal organisational working
practice – in particular in teleworking (working whilst on the
telephone and/or connected to the Internet or an intranet).
Annual surveys of thousands of OU students by the
Institute of Educational Technology show that on-line activity is one
of the least popular elements of OU courses. This has also been the
experience of the authors who have become increasingly aware, over the
last five years, of the possible stressful effect for students
undertaking on-line collaborative activities.
Stress is now the second greatest cause of absence
from work in the EU (back pain is the greatest) with over 50% of
absenteeism having its roots in work related stress – although this
stress is lessened when teleworking from home (BT 2002). This is
because home working means that the organisational environment is
absent, and the worker has more control over their own work.
The stresses caused by teleworking and on-line
collaboration are likely be similar in many areas, and this paper
draws on experience in both teleworking and on-line collaborative
activities. On-line collaborative activities are studied here in an
educational context but are becoming increasingly common in
organisational working methods. Virtual teams are becoming standard in
education, training and work, Lipnack and Stamps (1997) define them as
groups of people who interact through interdependent tasks guided by
common purpose and work across space, time and organisational
boundaries with links strengthened by webs of communication
technologies.
Stress can be defined as ‘when the perceived
pressure exceeds your perceived ability to cope’ (Palmer et al 2003).
Stress is thus always perceived; a situation is only stressful for a
given individual – not for all individuals. An external viewer cannot
label an experience as stressful unless the subject displays
physiological symptoms of stress, and there is a medical diagnosis
concluding that stress is the cause, or the subject states that they
have experienced stress. This means that one student may feel that a
situation is ‘stressful’ whilst another student may perceive it as
‘enjoyable’. This may account for why some students in our study
described particular activities as stressful, where others did not.
We believe that stress in a distance learning
course, such as those dealt with in this paper, can be minimised
through course design and by appropriate ‘acclimatisation’ of the
student to situations such as collaboration at the start of the
course. There is little, however, in the Distance Learning literature
that deals with perceived stress in students. Simpson (2000) is one of
the few writers to discuss stress in relation to Distance Learning –
but only does so in the general discussion of Stress Management,
rather than the question of designing out stress from courses. Surveys
of collaborative work in Australian Universities, such as that carried
out by Scott et al (1997), have also indicated that collaborative work
can cause stress, particularly when there are time constraints.
2.
Earlier research
In 2000, drawing from experience of studying 2000
MBA students in on-line collaborative activities, two barriers to
fully functional teleworking were proposed by Salmon et al (2000). The
barriers were ‘technical aspects’ and ‘collaboration’ and it was found
that both caused stress and had to be overcome for fully functional
teleworking. These barriers are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1:
Barriers to teleworking © John Allan2003
A third, major barrier for virtual team working is
lack of trust, (Walther 1992, Lipnack & Stamps 1997, Haywood, 1998,
Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html,
Cohen and Gibson, 2003), where trust is ‘a
confidence in someone’s competence and his or her commitment to a
goal’ (Handy 1995). In fact Hall (1999) feels that trust is more of a
problem on-line than face-to-face.
In the Open University we recognise the stresses
that can be derived from technical difficulties and try to minimise
them through the use of induction courses and helpdesks. These are,
however, only aimed at the use of communication software and not
collaborative methods
Traditionally stress caused directly through online
collaboration has been considered less of an issue, so in order to
ascertain to what degree it affects students a scoping study was
carried out during the winter of 2002/2003. Students from two groups
taking part in the one year long Diploma in Management course
completed questionnaires to establish how they felt about their
regular, course-based, online group activities. Students from the
short, 18-day Online Management Challenge (OMC) course were also asked
about their experiences whilst working online. The results, as well as
showing that some students definitely do feel stressed when working
online, revealed some other interesting findings. This has led to the
development of the following proposed model to indicate the main
factors in on-line collaboration stress.
Figure 2:
Stress caused by on-line collaboration ©John Allan 2003
3.
Current research
In July 2003, over 120 students took part in the
18-day OMC online management course. They were asked to complete a brief
web-based questionnaire beforehand, and those that did were then asked
to complete a further questionnaire after the end of the course. There
were 44 final responses and quotes from these are given in italics
below.
All students were studying for the Certificate in
Management, with over two thirds of the respondents being quite
experienced at working online having studied the ‘online’ version, of
the Certificate course, that is with online tutorials rather than the
standard face to face tutorials.
3.1
Technology and stress
The technology used may have a significant influence
on online activity (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002) and it affects the way
people interact in terms of the communications environment it provides
and the ease with which people can use it (Yoo & Alavi, 2001, Walther,
1996).
3.1.1
Technology provision
In the OUBS we use First Class as the conferencing
medium and for the OMC it is accessed via a web interface. Although it
offers very useful features and has a user-friendly interface, we
occasionally experience problems with our technical provision that
inevitably create stress for the students.
‘some days I missed [logging on]
due to technical difficulties’ [student quote]
3.1.2
User technology
Technical problems were, however, mainly at the user
end:
I ‘experience[d] a few computer
problems which restricted me a couple of days’
3.1.3
User technology skills
If the software is new to the student and is not very
intuitive to use, the students’ lack of skills can also create anxiety
as the students struggle to ‘make the technology work’.
3.2
The organisation
The organisation can be very influential with respect
to the experience of the students, two of the main areas it can affect
are culture and tutor support. (It is worth noting that at this stage we
are only considering organisational culture; national and functional
cultures are not explored here.)
3.2.1
Culture
In this instance the organisation is
the OUBS and the culture is that which pervades all our online courses
in terms of tone, activities and support. The less experienced students
taking part in the course had some familiarity with online support but
little in the way of online OUBS courses; the more experienced students
had a better understanding of
what to expect. This is shown by the less experienced student expecting
to log on about once a day, and the more experienced students
anticipating between once and more than once per day; the higher figure
being a more realistic expectation.
|
1 |
once every 2-3 days |
|
|
2 |
once a day |
Av. for inexperienced students = 2.08 |
|
3 |
more than once a day |
Av for experienced students = 2.53 |
Figure 3: Student
expectations for logging on
There are also differences between working on the OMC
and in online tutorials in the Diploma course. In the OMC the students
are far more self-directing and the lack of provided structure leads
them to become rapidly aware of the different behavioural aspects of
working online. To use a metaphor, in our normal face-to-face lives we
understand expected behaviours such as the need to form a queue at the
supermarket checkout, but online there are rules that many students are
unaware of in which case there is a higher risk of unacceptable (or
unexpected) behaviour. The organisation needs to acquaint the student
with the rules for online working, in that specific context, if it is to
avoid the stress caused by misunderstandings, for example how often they
should expect to be posting messages:
‘I posted more than I thought I
would as it was essential if I wanted to join in the debate and
discussion’
I posted ‘quite a lot more than
expected but we communicated really well so that was great’
‘I posted more than anticipated.
This was clearly due to the enjoyment level’
Or how often they should be logging in:
‘I had to log in several times a
day in the important periods, I thought I would be able to log in just
once a day!!’
Work pressures meant that ‘I only
had a chance to log on once each night.....it did make the [OMC] more
stressful’
3.2.2
Tutor support
The organisation can also influence the students’
experiences by ensuring that the tutors are well prepared and trained,
so that they help to manage students’ expectations:
‘Being in contact early by the
tutor in response to my concern...alleviated a lot of stress’.
3.3
The Individual
The individual brings their own working and
behavioural preferences to any group activity, and although many of us
are aware of how we work in a face-to-face environment, we may have had
less opportunity to consider and reflect upon how we work in an online
environment. On one level it is worth being pragmatic about these
differences:
‘These are however problems faced
in everyday working life’
However it is also worth considering what factors can
be mitigated against in advance, in order to reduce stress. The
following were some of the main sources of frustration.
3.3.1
Student expectations
These have already been referred to above, but it is
not just the organisation that can influence these; the student
themselves can prepare themselves for the online experience in order to
ensure that their expectations are realistic. This can be done through
reading any preparatory materials and talking to other students who have
already gone though that experience, either in person or through online
discussions.
3.3.2
The pace of asynchronous working, including
the time taken to build relationships
Walther
(1996) notes that forming relationships online is slower than
face-to-face, although the amount of information exchanged is the same,
thus many students found it frustrating to be trying to build relations
and work asynchronously.
‘I did get frustrated with the
asynchronous nature of the communication
‘People dipped in and out
according to their daily schedule, and only a couple of times met at
once. This was one of the difficulties of my experience of working
online’
I suffered ‘Frustration with the
initial slow pace of things’
3.3.3
Time pressure
The OMC is designed with a tight time-frame in order
to motivate the groups to form and work together, any longer and the
momentum starts to be lost. This can be seen to work:
The time factor ... made me
contribute earlier than I normally would’.
However students do struggle with balancing home,
work, revision for their exam and the OMC:
‘the time constraints of the
challenge proved difficult’.
Subsequent delays then affect the other group
members:
‘I...found it very frustrating
waiting for others in the group to make their contributions’.
3.3.4
Task participation
Group
decision-making literature shows that groups work more positively if
there is active task participation (Yoo and Alvai 2001), if this is
absent it can lead to stress:
‘It was also quite frustrating at
times if people didn’t participate’
3.3.5
Group roles
As the students work together there needs to be a
recognition of the differences between group members and the fact that
these can be useful, not necessarily detrimental, to the group (Shaw &
Barret-Power 1998). Some students recognised this:
‘Allow room for all the styles
and types as this provides the most efficient and effective methods of
making decision and problem solving – as well as a wide varying range of
personal views’
3.3.6
Group cohesion
Group
cohesion is a way of describing members' attraction to the group’ (Hogg
1992 p30) and forms as a result of the group development process (Tuckman
1965). Groups are seen to work better when there is group cohesion (Yoo
& Alavi 2001). Over 90% of the OMC students felt that
a sense of group responsibility helps the group to work and many of
their comments reflected their own commitment
‘Realising that someone had put a
lot of effort on a particular activity ...I could not disappoint him’
‘I didn’t want to be responsible
for letting the team down’.
This commitment is built through supportive
activities, such as responding or recognising the work of others:
‘A thank you for your
contributions made a big difference’
‘Feedback on ideas... encouraged
further posting’.
If this is not done this too can lead to stress:
I felt ‘Annoyed that people did
not answer or acknowledge points input by me’.
4.
Discussion
Stress is not a medical condition but is based on the
perception of an individual, thus what may appear stressful for one
person may be viewed as a challenge by another. It is therefore
important to understand what the individual’s perceptions are and
address these if we are to address the issue of stress with online
working and learning.
Our earlier work showed that students certainly do
experience stress when working online, but that this is not always for
the reasons you would expect.
‘Asynchronous Anxiety’ is a term used to describe
stress from on-line activities caused by a distrust of asynchronous
activity. Students are worried that their computer skills are not up to
a long period of robust on line collaboration. (Crouch and Montecino
1997)
http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc_conf97/pres/crouch.html and
‘Technostress’ is a term used to describe the stress felt by employees
when receiving demands from managers by e-mail without the buffering
effects of face-to face-interaction (Gardner & Scheemerhom 1988) leading
to significantly increased stress (Duxbury et al 1995)
http://hsb.baylor.edu/ramsower/acis/papers/staples.htm . We found
evidence of both Asynchronous Anxiety and Technostress amongst the
students.
In our own research we discovered that students
experience what we term e-team stress, which occurs when team
members feel pressured not to let down the other members of their team.
Our current research shows that there are further
factors that influence participants and that the factors influencing
this are predominantly at the technological, organisational and
individual levels. Through understanding the influences it may therefore
be possible to address some of them in order to reduce or remove the
factors that cause stress for some individuals.
4.1
Reducing stress caused by technology
In the first instance the technology used should be
as user-friendly and as trouble-free as possible, providing a
comfortable, accessible learning space.
Some elements of stress for students can be minimised
through:
§
Specifying the minimum technology standards required by the students
§
Specifying the minimum prior knowledge level of the student, including
their technical skills level.
§
Running induction courses for students who have a skills shortage
§
Maintaining a Help Desk to address technical problem that arise
4.2
How the organisation can reduce stress
The organisation needs to recognise its own working
culture, and may need to adapt it if necessary to enable trouble free
online working. This may involve creating a set of rules for online
working to expedite students’ adaptation to working in the online
environment, as well as providing accurate predictions for workload and
working patterns. It may also involve briefing the tutors or
facilitators on how to prepare the students.
4.3
Reducing stress at the individual level
The students need to recognise and understand their
own online group-working preferences, as well as being aware of other
people’s. They should ensure adequate preparation, recognising that as
this is still a relatively new medium for learning they may need to
consider additional factors. These include:
§
The pace of asynchronous working, including the time taken to build
relationships
§
The time pressure
§
Group roles
§
Group cohesion
5.
Follow up research
Following on from this we identified two areas for
follow up research. The first was carried out during the winter of
2003/4 where the implications of the findings were tested on a group of
students starting the Diploma in Management. These students began their
course in November 2003 and will be working together until October 2004,
carrying out regular online collaborative activities as part of their
course learning.
The students first made contact with the tutor and
each other on-line and carried out a simple exercise to acquaint
themselves with each other and to begin to become familiar with some of
the issues they might be facing with their online working. This was
followed by a face-to-face meeting where the problems of asynchronous
working were discussed between students comprising the online work
groups. Each group was be asked to draw up its own protocols for
collaboration and to identify online group roles that would be rotated
throughout the year.
After the first collaborative assignment students
were given the same questionnaire as in 2002 and the results are given
below.
13% of students felt ‘stressed’ other than through
purely technical problems
These students indicated that the perceived peer
pressure from having to collaborate was a major factor, what we have
termed e-team stress.
Although this is only a small scale test, it can be
seen that modifying the structure of the course to include a simple, non
threatening, ‘fun’ on-line collaboration exercise, has the effect of
significantly lowering the stress felt by students in subsequent on-line
collaborations (compared to previous cohorts where the average was
approximately 50% who felt stressed).
The second area for follow-up work involves further
research into the students of the short, OMC course. The lessons learned
have been applied to developing an introductory activity that is
designed to alert the participants to a number of issues and required
actions that affect online collaborative working. It is intended that by
highlighting these factors at an early stage, and by using them as a
trigger to aid the groups to develop working protocols, the groups will
be able to form then perform (Tuckman, 1965) more quickly than those
groups that have not been prepared in this way. It is also anticipated
that this will make the online working experience less stressful.
References
-
BT (2002)–
Teleworking at BT- The Environmental and Social Impacts of its
Workabout Scheme. University of Bradford
-
Cohen S, and
Gibson C (2003) Mutual Understanding, Integration and Trust: Creating
Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness, working paper Marshall
School of Business, Los Angeles
-
Crouch,M.L.,
Montecino,V. (1997) Cyberstress: asynchronous anxiety or worried in
cyberspace, Teaching in the Community Online Conference, Hawaii 1997.
http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc_conf97/pres/crouch.html
-
Duxbury,L.,
Higgins, C., Staples S., (1995) An Empirical Study of Electronic Mail
Usage
Americas Conference on Information Systems
1995
-
http://hsb.baylor.edu/ramsower/acis/papers/staples.htm
-
Gardner, W.
& Schermerhorn, J. (1988). Computer Networks and the Changing Nature
of Managerial Work, Public Productivity Review, 11, 85-89.
-
Hall T., (1999) Intelligence
Community Collaboration Baseline Study, Solutions Office of Advanced
Analytic Tools, US Government
-
Handy, C. (1995) 'Trust and the
Virtual Organization', Harvard Business Review, 73 (3), pp. 40-50.
-
Hogg, M. A. (1992) The Social
Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity,
Harvester Wheatsheaf
-
Haywood, M. (1998) Managing
Virtual Teams: Practical Techniques for High Technology Project
Managers, Artech House, Norwood, MA
-
Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Leidner,
D. E. (1999) 'Communications and Trust in Global Virtual Teams',
Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management
Sciences, 10 (6), pp. 791.
-
Kayworth, T. R. and Leidner, D.
E. (2002) 'Leadership Effectivness in Global Virtual Teams', Journal
of Management Information Systems, 18 (3), pp. 7-40.
-
Lipnack,J &
Stamps,J (1997) Virtual Teams:Reaching across space time and
organisations with technology. John Wiley, New York
-
Palmer,S.,Cooper,C., and Thomas K (2003) Creating a Balance: Managing
Stress British Library London
-
Scott,D.,
Durnell,C,. Gauvin,S., Lobert, B., Steinke, G., Patterson,K., Internet
based collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation. The Third
Australian WorldWideWeb Conference 1997
-
Shaw, J. B. and Barrett-Power,
E. (1998) 'The Effects of Diversity on Small Work Group Processes and
Performance', Human Relations, 51 (10), pp. 1307-1325
-
Salmon,G.K,
Allan, J.S. and Giles,K (2000) ‘Training for Online Working’ in
Daniel,K., Lamond,D., and Standen,P. (eds) Managing Telework Thompson.
London
-
Simpson,O.
(2000) Supporting Students in Open and Distance Learning, Kogan Page,
London
-
Tuckman, B. W. (1965)
'Developmental Sequence in Small Groups', Psychological Bulletin, 63
(6), pp. 384-399.
-
Wallace, P. (1999) The
Psychology of the Internet, Cambridge University Press
-
Walther, J.
B. (1996) 'Computer-Mediated Communications: Impersonal, Interpersonal
and Hyperpersonal Interaction', Communication Research, 23 (1)
- Yoo,
Y. and Alavi, M. (2001) 'Media and Group Cohesion: Relative Influences
on Social Presence, Task participation, and Group Consensus', MIS
Quarterly, 25 (3), pp. 371-390
|
