Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Applying adaptive swarm intelligence technology with structuration

in web-based collaborative learning
Yueh-Min Huang *, Chien-Hung Liu
Department of Engineering Science, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, Ta-Hsueh Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: One of the key challenges in the promotion of web-based learning is the development of effective collab-
Received 6 March 2008 orative learning environments. We posit that the structuration process strongly influences the effective-
Received in revised form 4 December 2008 ness of technology used in web-based collaborative learning activities. In this paper, we propose an ant
Accepted 5 December 2008
swarm collaborative learning (ASCL) environment based on a swarm intelligence system (SIS) that struc-
tures opportunities for effective collaboration and learning in a dynamic way. The results of our experi-
ments indicate that: (1) the self-organizing behavior of SIS is positively associated with system
Keywords:
appropriation; (2) the multi-agent-based mechanism of SIS is positively associated with system appropri-
Collaborative learning
Distributed learning environments
ation; (3) the cohesive capability of SIS is positively associated with system appropriation; and (4) the
Computer-mediated communication learner’s tendency toward system appropriation is positively associated with learning effectiveness.
Learning communities Our findings also show that learners in an ASCL environment outperform their counterparts in a general
web-based learning (GWL) environment. We conclude that different types of technological support can
influence the achievement in a web-based learning environment.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Web-based learning (WBL) is becoming an increasingly popular method of education because of its many advantages, such as providing
students with the freedom to choose the time and place to study, giving students access to a broader range of study materials, as well as
allowing for development of broader learning communities and implementation of collaborative learning strategies (Alavi, 1994). Creation
of an effective web-based collaborative learning environment is therefore an on-going challenge in an effort to enhance learning through
the Internet and related technologies.
Based on constructivism and social learning theories (Vygotsky, 1978) that assume learning emerges as learners interact with each
other, collaborative learning is a learner-centered and team-oriented approach. In essence, this method requires learners work together
to accomplish a learning goal and maximize achievement. The key to collaborative learning lies in the interaction between individuals
and collaborative learning activities. In other words, with their unique knowledge and perspective, individuals move from seemingly diver-
gent perspectives to collaborative knowledge building (Puntambekar, 2006). According to Vygotsky’s theory of zone of proximal develop-
ment (ZPD) (1978), learners interacting within the ZPD are more capable of participating in advanced tool-mediated activities. They
subsequently adopt learning-supported tools that advance their independent problem solving. As predicted by the ZPD, expert assistance
or scaffolding can lead learners toward new communication tasks and capabilities, thereby creating new opportunities for development in
the design of web-based collaborative learning technologies.
Collaborative learning and agent-based technology are two disciplines that share the notions of integrated concepts, methods and tech-
niques from various fields which include educational science, computer science and artificial intelligence (AI). One emerging field of inves-
tigation that has been increasingly receiving attention over the past years is dubbed biologically inspired computing, in particular, swarm
intelligence (SI) (Bonabeau, Dorigo, & Théraulaz, 1999; Kennedy & Eberhart, 2001). Inspired by the collective behavior of social insect col-
onies such as swarms of bees and colonies of ants, SI has been investigated even in human social behavior (Kennedy & Eberhart, 2001). A
particularly interesting idea in this paper is the concept of ant colony optimization (ACO), a particular form of intelligent communication
used by social insects to coordinate their learning activities. Providing a model of distributed-organization, ACO is useful for solving the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 2757575x63336; fax: +886 6 2766549.

E-mail addresses: huang@mail.ncku.edu.tw (Y.-M. Huang), chliu@mail.hku.edu.tw (C.-H. Liu).

0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.002
790 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799

optimization of distributive control problems via integration of three characteristics (self-organization behavior, multi-agent-based mech-
anism, and cohesive capability).
As information technology (IT) has advanced to become more communication-based and collaborative, the field’s concern with the
structuring properties of technology has been preserved (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991). Structuration is a highly dynamic theory. It concerns
the evolution of social structure through ongoing interaction of learners with one another and inherent social regulations. Structuration
theory (ST) (Giddens, 1977) attempts to recast structure and agency as a mutually dependent duality. As indicated by Orlikowski and Robey
(1991), the tenets of ST can help understand the relationship between IT and organizations. Rose (1998) also indicated that ST was used to
theorize the field of IS (information system) and to analyze empirical situations involving IS, but little attempt had been made to ‘opera-
tionalize’ the theory or use it in an attempt to directly influence IS practice. In this paper, we draw on structuration theory and adaptive
structuration theory (AST) (Poole & DeSanctis, 1989) to argue that, when facing with structural impediments to effective interaction,
groups are likely to explore ways of adapting environmental factors (e.g., technological, communicative structures) to compensate for such
problems. A major strength of AST is that it expounds the nature of social structures within advanced information technologies and key
interaction process. The process can be characterized by modes of appropriation defined in AST: faithfulness of appropriation, level of con-
sensus on appropriation, and attitudes and comfort with technology. In our study, SI technology as a medium for structural changes pro-
vides insight into how collaborative learning will influence interaction of learners around appropriation of this technology. Poole and
DeSanctis (1989) suggested that in order for a GDSS (Group Decision Support System) to have its intended effects, its structures should
be appropriated in a stable manner. Features are stable if the group appropriates them in a consistent way, reproducing them in a similar
form over time. For appropriation to be stabilized, the system should be faithfully appropriated, there should be a high level of consensus
on appropriation, and the group’s attitudes toward the technology should be positive.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section describes the theoretical background for the research. Section 3
states the development of our study hypotheses. Section 4 describes the components of our research framework, and the experimental
task. Analysis and discussion of the results, conclusions and further research follow.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Swarm Intelligence Technology

The term swarm intelligence (SI) was coined in the late 1980’s to refer to cellular robotic systems in which a collection of simple agents
in an environment interact according to simple local rules. In recent years, SI, with its demonstrated ability to solve complex problems such
as scheduling problems, structural optimization, multi-objective problems (Blum, 2005) and e-learning problems (Semet, Lutton, & Collet,
2003) through distributed and emergent behavior, has become an area of active research. The principles of SI were originally inspired by
the observation of various natural and social phenomena, which have been developed to imitate the flocking of birds or the swarming of
insects. The insect colonies allocate different tasks among individuals adaptively and flexibly, resulting in an improvement of their adapt-
ability to environments as well as an increase in resources obtained.
Proposed by Marco Dorigo and his colleagues in the early 1990’s, ant colony optimization (ACO) (Dorigo, Maniezzo, & Colorni, 1996) is a
novel technique for solving various NP hard combinatorial optimization problems. The social behavior of ants that provided inspiration for
ACO is their foraging behavior and, in particular, how ants can find the shortest path between food sources and their nest. While searching
for food, ants excrete pheromones that leave a chemical trail which other ants are attracted to and follow. Typically ants follow a particular
path according to pheromone concentrations on the route. As a shorter path to food will be traversed more quickly, they have a better
chance of being sought out and reinforced by other ants before the volatile pheromones evaporate. Through the use of pheromone trails
and random search procedures, the colony is able to rapidly find the shortest path to food. The process through which ants communicate
with one another indirectly by pheromone information is known as stigmergy (Grassé, 1959).
From the artificial intelligence (AI) perspective, ACO algorithms are a subset and one of the most successful strands of SI (Bonabeau,
Dorigo, & Theraulaz, 2000). The goal of SI is to design intelligent multi-agent systems (MASs) by taking inspiration from the collective
behavior of social insects. Bonabeau and Meyer (2001) indicated that social insects are an evolutionarily successful class of insects due
to flexibility, robustness, and capability of self-organization that make ACO adopt a natural process toward finding the optimum solution
to uncertain open systems. Social insects are flexible and can quickly adapt to a changing environment. When one or more individual mem-
bers fail in given tasks, the group can still successfully perform its task and bring self-organization to colony decision-makers using local
information.
In this empirical study, we provided an ant swarm collaborative learning (ASCL) environment to evaluate learning performance. The
web-based environment mainly integrated the ANTS (Agent-based Navigational Training System) (Chen & Huang, 2005) and SACS
(Style-based ant Colony System) (Wang, Wang, & Huang, 2008) to promote collaborative activities. The ANTS is an LMS (Learning Manage-
ment System), and registers its learning resource with LRMS (Learning Resource Management System) which is responsible for the man-
agement of learning resources. There are also various intelligent e-learning agents employed in the ANTS, which guide learners through
curriculums in an appropriate learning sequence. The architecture of ANTS is depicted in Fig. 1. In addition, SACS is derived from an exten-
sion of Ant Colony System (ACS) (Dorigo & Gambardella, 1997) that records a group’s collective thinking and updates the trail’s pheromone
from the different styles of the group’s members to create a flexible and dynamic learning path.

2.2. Adaptive structuration theory

Structuration is posited as a social process that involves the reciprocal interaction of human actors and structural features of organiza-
tions. Structuration theory (ST) was originally advanced by Giddens (1979). His theory of structuration attempts to synthesize the classical
categories of structure and agency in a dialectical framework. It emphasizes the ‘duality’ of structure: the mutual dependence of structure
and agency. A central tenet of ST is the recursive relationship (a ‘duality’) between structures (i.e., the rules and resources afforded to the
students) and systems (i.e., the interaction among the students). Structuration occurs as actors move to invoke existing structures or to
 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799 791

Fig. 1. The functional module of ants.

create new ones, producing and reproducing structures and the associated social system. Additionally, ST has been well-known in the
broader field of organization studies for its ability to generate insight into group decision making (Poole, Seibold, & McPhee, 1985), orga-
nizational learning, and knowledge management (Gopal, Bosrom, & Chin, 1992; Hargadon & Fanelli, 2002). Therefore, structuration is use-
ful in helping us understand how IT can affect group outcomes of collaborative learning.
In this study, we focus on the interplay of learners with technology—the structure of human–computer interaction, the structure of
systems design and use, and the potential for somehow improving learning conditions through applications of IT to the learning society.
Nevertheless, Giddens did not explicitly address the issue of technology in his structuration paradigm. Orlikowski and Robey (1991)
were the first to apply ST to study the interaction between IT and organizations. They proposed a structural model of technology in
which the dual nature of IT is at the heart of the structuration process. Poole et al. (1985) developed a structuration theory of group
development that has its roots in Giddens’s social theory of structuration. Adaptive structuration theory (AST), as portrayed by DeSanctis
and Poole (1994), even extends structuration models to consider mutual influences of technology and social processes. The theory de-
scribes the process by which technologies are adapted in terms of structures, appropriation, and decision outcomes, and attempts to
explain how technology affects group and organizational processes and their resultant outcomes (Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra, King, &
Ba, 2000). AST also clarifies the nature of information exchange in the GDSS context and offers an approach to represent and measure
group adaptation to technology.
792 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799

3. Hypothesis development and Inference

Given the uniqueness of using technologies as the primary means of delivery of instruction and interaction in the context of online edu-
cation, understanding the determinants of IT usage should help to ensure effective and efficient teaching and learning while improving the
deployment of resources in a web-based educational program. Taylor and Todd (1995) have employed attitude-behavior based models to
explain technology acceptance and utilization. Attitude is defined as ‘‘an individual’s positive or negative feelings about performing the
target behavior” (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) while being a multidimensional construct that is recognized by Poole and DeSanctis
(1989). Notable among these dimensions are Davis’ perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.
Within the context of ASCL, perceived usefulness is defined as the prospective student’s subjective probability that using SIS (Swarm
Intelligence System) will increase his/her performance in a course, and perceived ease of use refers to the degree to which a prospec-
tive student expects SIS to be free from cognitive effort. According to Davis’ TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) (Davis, 1989), the
easier and more useful the technology is perceived to be, the more positive one’s attitude and intention toward using the technology
becomes (Taylor & Todd, 1995). Moreover, the central concepts of AST, structuration and appropriation, all provide a dynamic picture of
the process by which learners adapt and adopt intelligence technologies into their studying practices. Therefore, we have our first
hypothesis:

H1. Learners’ tendency toward system appropriation is positively associated with learning effectiveness.
A highly organized system usually refers to some external or internal agent that is responsible for controlling, directing, or guiding an
organization. Many applications require a set of agents that are individually autonomous, but corporately structured. In other words, we
expect that individual local decisions might yield coherent global behavior. Therefore, self-organization can be defined as the spontaneous
creation of a globally coherent pattern out of local interactions.
Serra and Zanarini (1990) described the concept of self-organization as ‘‘highly organized behavior even in the absence of a preordained
design” and as ‘‘unexpected and complex behaviors”. Web-based behavior is typically unpredictable, yet exhibits various forms of adap-
tation and self-organization. Whereas self-organization allows a system to develop autonomously, natural selection is responsible for
its adaptation to a variable environment. Self-organization behavior is often associated with swarm intelligence (SI), stigmergy, reinforce-
ment learning, and many other descriptions of complex systems behavior. The behavior exhibited by ant colonies where they seem to con-
duct their affairs in a very organized and purposeful way that enhances their collective survival, has often been characterized as intelligent,
emergent, and self-organized (Bonabeau et al., 1999).
From the behavioral perspective, learning process implies behavioral changes. Prigogine (1976) proposed that changes in various cog-
nitive activities should be directed by some kind of self-organization process. Despite the decentralized, unorganized, and heterogeneous
nature of a web-based system, our work shows that the web can self-organize its link structure and subsequently allow efficient identi-
fication of learning communities. Such self-organization is significant because no central authority or process governs the formation
and structure of hyperlinks. In our intelligence learning system, information can be fed back to other learners, providing a new source
of navigational guidance indicating the most efficient ways through a body of knowledge—a self-organizing approach to learn path-finding
support. Our second hypothesis is thus proposed.

H2. Self-organization behavior of SIS is positively associated with system appropriation.

One of the most recent trends in AI research applied to computer assisted learning is the area of computer-supported collaborative
learning (CSCL). A CSCL environment should include functions that assist learners to apply domain knowledge and promote opportunities
for effective collaborative learning. In most organizations, web knowledge is distributed among the many individual group members. In the
context of distributed collaborative learning, where students and instructors are geographically distributed, intelligent agents have been
developed to support group learning (Soller, 2001). Therefore, we present an ASCL environment based on intelligent swarm agents from
distributed artificial intelligence.
Multi-agent learning has been defined as ‘‘learning that relies on or even requires the interaction among several intelligent agents”
(Weiss, 1999; Wooldridge & Jennings, 1995). MAS development, which provides the basis for an open environment where agents interact
with each other to reach their individual or shared goals, has gained increasing popularity on the Internet. On the Internet, information
sources, communication links, and agents can appear and disappear unexpectedly. Built on human societies and distributed computation,
MASs offer modularity that is one of the most powerful architectures for handling a large, dynamically changing and unpredictable web-
based learning environment. The capability of gathering information with context requires that agents on the Internet be able to interop-
erate and coordinate with each other in peer-to-peer interactions.
The potential of insect models for multi-agent coordination and control is receiving increasing attention. SI systems are typically made
up of a population of simple agents interacting locally with one another. Although there is normally no centralized control structure dic-
tating how individual agents should behave, local interactions between agents often lead to the emergence of global behavior. Within the
collaborative multi-agent learning environment, the agents work together as a group to improve their performance on a given learning
task. Since the agents are collaborative, they are willing to communicate with each other during the learning process. Thus, we have
the third hypothesis:

H3. Multi-agent-based mechanism of SIS is positively associated with system appropriation.

With the advent of new technology-enabled organizational forms, firms are increasingly relying upon on-line teams to accomplish orga-
nizational goals. Group cohesion is identified as a factor exerting influence on group performance (Wech, Mossholder, Steel, & Bennett,
1998) as socially diverse members of groups work together and engage in meaningful interactions. McGrath (1984) also referred to group
cohesion as ‘‘artificial aggregates”, the aggregate of interpersonal attractions of individual group members to each other. In prior literature,
a number of meta-analyzes (Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995; Mullen & Copper, 1994) have proven a positive relationship between cohesion
and performance. Therefore, it is the key to understand the impact of the cohesive capability of a learning system on team processes and
performance.
 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799 793

Classical clustering algorithms are static and centralized to discover structure in data. Contrasting with the conventional clustering algo-
rithms, research based on SI, especially on ant-based clustering algorithms (Vizine, deCastro, Hruschka, & Gudwin, 2005), shows that such
algorithms are dynamic and decentralized with a hierarchical structure. Ants can adjust their behavior, in accordance with different clus-
tering surroundings, changes of distance metric and attributes of objects, without affecting their performance. Since the state of an ant is
only determined by its local information, the agents (ants) can update information adaptively and send it across the grid to other agents.
Through the cooperative effect, the agents dynamically form into suitable clusters. Thus, we have the fourth hypothesis:
H4. Cohesive capability of SIS is positively associated with system appropriation.
Self-efficacy, as a ‘‘construct of interest”, stems from Bandura’s work on social cognitive theory. His study indicates an individual’s con-
fidence in his/her ability to successfully accomplish a given task or activity is affected by the interaction of behavior, cognitions, and the
environment (Bandura, 1986). Research has demonstrated the utility of self-efficacy in predicting subsequent achievement outcomes
(Compeau, Higgins, & Huff, 1999; Hill, Smith, & Mann, 1987).
In addition, students’ confidence in their capabilities of employing IT appropriately is also an indicator of computer self-efficacy (Chou &
Liu, 2005). The confidence and competence of students will have a major impact on learning and productivity improvement when using
computer systems to do complex and dynamic knowledge work. Therefore, it seems appropriate to consider the potential effect of indi-
viduals’ computer knowledge on self-efficacy beliefs. In collaborative learning, IT is used to perform important organizational functions
such as problem-solving or decision-making (Doll & Torkzadeh, 1998). We argue that SIS characteristics are important determinants of
computer self-efficacy in the collaborative learning context.
Within an organization, perceived collective efficacy represents the beliefs of group members concerning ‘‘the performance capability of
a social system as a whole” (Bandura, 1986). The social cognitive theory highlights the important role of structures and actions that enable
groups to exercise collective agency. Thus, the appropriation that individuals and organizations make is influenced by the strength of their
efficacies. Prior research suggests that perceived collective efficacy is strongly related to student achievement in school activities (Bandura,
1993; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). Learners with higher self-efficacy can successfully accomplish tasks in a variety of computer applica-
tions or learning environments (Liu, Chiang, & Huang, 2007). In our study, collective efficacy assumes the perceptions of ASCL in specific
multi-agents (content agent, interface agent, problem-solving agent) as a whole can execute courses of action required to positively affect
student achievement. Therefore, we have the final hypothesis:
H5. Learners in the ASCL environment outperform their counterparts in the GWL environment.

4. Research design

In order to understand the impact of social interaction with IT on learning performance, a longitudinal field study was conducted. Fig. 2
depicts the basic components of our research framework, which focuses on learning effectiveness within SIS in the context of web-based
collaborative learning. This model presumes that three system characteristics (self-organization, multi-agency, and cohesiveness) will di-
rectly affect system appropriation. In addition, the impact of the antecedent variables (faithfulness, consensus, perceived ease of use, and
perceived usefulness toward system appropriation) on learning effectiveness is hypothesized. Finally, we try to compare learning achieve-
ment between two different learning environments by means of test scores on a TQC (Techficiency Quotient Certification) exam. One is
GWL (general web-based learning), which is a traditional virtual learning system without SI technology support design. The other is ASCL
(ant swarm collaborative learning) based on ACS, which is a modification of ANTS, an integrated e-Learning system. The relationship in this
framework was initially derived from relevant literature so verification of practical validity was necessary and relevant hypotheses have
been proposed in the previous section.

Fig. 2. Research framework.

794 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Age Mean = 20.6

Range = 18–22
Gender Male = 200 (54%)
Female = 168 (46%)
Years of computer experience Mean = 4.2
Range = 2–6
Years of webpage design experience Mean = 0.5
Range = 0–2

A total of 368 students (200 males and 168 females) ranging in age from 18 to 22 participated in this study. Participants were under-
graduates from two universities in Taiwan enrolled in a webpage design course (using Dreamweaver 8 software). Participation was volun-
tary. Our demographic information indicated that the average age of participants was 20.6 (SD = 1.1), their prior experience of computer
usage ranged from 2 to 6 years, with a mean of 4.2 years, and their prior experience of using the webpage design software ranged from 0 to
2 years, with a mean of 0.5 year. Table 1 provides the demographic profile of our sample.
The students were divided into collaborative learning groups of 3 or 4. To avoid the bias of gathering high-skilled students or students of
the same gender in particular groups, we utilized Student Team-Achievement Division (STAD), a specific collaborative learning structure
technique developed by Slavin (1978), to assign the subjects. At the beginning of the course, we conducted a pre-test of knowledge of
course competencies based on computer self-efficacy (p = 0.52), prior information system experience (p = 0.28), and familiarity with
web-based learning systems (p = 0.33) employed in the study. T-tests revealed no significant differences (p-values > 0.05) in the back-
ground of the subjects. Thus, we assume the homogeneity of pre-treatment skills, attitudes, experience, and expectation among the
subjects.
To compare learning effectiveness of GWL and ASCL, we conducted a semester-long (18 weeks) field experiment adopting a two-group
repeated design within two colleges. The 368 participants were divided into 105 groups; 192 students (55 groups) belonged to the treat-
ment group and completed the course under SIS learning system while the other 176 students (50 groups) were assigned to the control
group and completed the course under the traditional web-based learning system. To measure constructs and examine the relationship
between characteristics of the system, system appropriation, and learning effectiveness, we conducted a survey at the end of the semester.

Table 2
Constructs and measures.

Construct Measure
Learning effectiveness
(LE1) I am satisfied with using this learning system in this course
(LE2) I feel comfortable using the system on my own
(LE3) I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this course
(LE4) I am satisfied with the learning environment
(LE5) Using this learning system enhances effectiveness on the course work
(LE6) If I had another opportunity to take another course via this system I would gladly do so
Self-organization
(SO1) The learning system can present problem solutions in a well-organized manner
(SO2) The learning system offers flexibility in learning
(SO3) The learning system can organize personalized navigation support
(SO4) The learning system can gather through different forms of feedback
Multi-agency
(MA1) The learning system enables interactive communication among group members
(MA2) The learning system is flexible to interact with
(MA3) Assistance is available when I need help with any issues
(MA4) The learning system effectively helped me know what to do and easily access course materials
(MA5) The learning system helped me solve problems and met my needs for assistance
Cohesiveness
(COH1) I feel that I am really a part of my group
(COH2) People in my group work together well
(COH3) Members of my group deal well with personal differences
(COH4) In my group, we tell each other the way we are feeling
(COH5) I can retrieve relevant information from the system
(COH6) The learning system effectively helped me present my work to others and complete assignments
System appropriation
(SA1) I am confident of using the learning system
(SA2) I can navigate my problem solution confidently and accurately
(SA3) Our group members have consistency to accept this learning system
(SA4) Our group has confidence in learning through this system
(SA5) Our group members agree with the decision-making of the group
(SA6) I could easily operate the system on my own
(SA7) Using the learning system will allow me to accomplish learning task more quickly
(SA8) Using the learning system will improve my learning performance
(SA9) I find the learning system useful in my learning

Note: SO: self-organization; MA: multi-agency; COH: cohesiveness; SA: system appropriation; LE: learning effectiveness.
 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799 795

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of research constructs.

Constructs Means Standard deviation

Self-organization 5.36 1.03
Multi-agency 5.78 1.16
Cohesiveness 5.12 1.28
System appropriation 4.68 1.31
Learning effectiveness 5.29 1.12

Note: All measures are 7-point scales with anchors 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

A structured questionnaire was developed based on a review of prior studies (Bandura, 1986; Davis, 1989; McGrath, 1984; Poole & DeSanc-
tis, 1989), feedback from 25 participants and was proofread by 3 experts. The instrument was then refined and validated in a pilot statis-
tical test. Finally, the improved survey instrument was distributed to the ASCL groups, so only the participants in the treatment group were
required to complete the survey by indicating their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (7) (Table 2). A total of 192 usable responses were returned. The descriptive statistics of construct variables are shown in
Table 3.
Subsequently, both the treatment group and the control group were asked to register and take a TQC exam on Dreamweaver. Widely
recognized by various enterprises in Taiwan, TQC is a qualification that enables people to demonstrate their competence in computer skills.
The TQC exam consisted of two on-line tests. One was a multiple-choice test and the other was a timed hands-on application test. The two
tests were different in nature in that the former tested students’ understanding and knowledge of the course material concerning the
Dreamweaver software, while the latter measured their ability to use software skills. The test was 20 multiple-choice questions randomly
selected from a large bank of questions. The hands-on application test comprised of four main questions (tasks), and each question had a
couple of sub-questions. For each question (task), they needed to execute necessary steps to fulfill the requested task. The hands-on appli-
cation test was designed to measure their ability to apply what the participants learned from their distinctive learning system.

5. Results and discussion

The objective of this study is to investigate the relationships between characteristics of the swarm intelligence system, system appro-
priation and learning effectiveness. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is thus employed to test the interrelationships among all the vari-
ables in an integral model. A major advantage of SEM is its ability to estimate a complete model that incorporates both measurement and

Table 4
Results for the measurement model.

Factor Item Factor loading Variance extracted Composite reliability

Self-organization SO1 0.832a 0.815 0.926
SO2 0.906b
SO3 0.784b
SO4 0.863b
Multi-agency MA1 0.861a 0.732 0.837
MA2 0.820b
MA3 0.788b
MA4 0.851b
MA5 0.767b
Cohesiveness COH1 0.865a 0.721 0.862
COH2 0.834b
COH3 0.786b
COH4 0.759b
COH5 0.805b
COH6 0.762b
System appropriation SA1 0.936a 0.802 0.913
SA2 0.856b
SA3 0.788b
SA4 0.824b
SA5 0.883b
SA6 0.751b
SA7 0.917b
SA8 0.815b
SA9 0.793b
Learning effectiveness LE1 0.788a 0.718 0.87
LE2 0.862b
LE3 0.936b
LE4 0.886b
LE5 0.922b
LE6 0.765b

Note: SO: self-organization; MA: multi-agency; COH: cohesiveness; SA: system appropriation; LE: learning effectiveness.
a
A loading that was not tested, as its value was fixed.
b
p < .05.
796 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799

structural considerations to test hypotheses about relations between observed and latent variables. SEM is usually viewed as a confirma-
tory procedure rather than an exploratory one. It can also be seen as a family of statistical techniques that incorporates and integrates path
analysis, multiple regression analysis and factor analysis. The model consists of two parts: the measurement model that assesses reliability
and validity of measures, and the structural model which assesses relationships between theoretical constructs. The measurement model
specifies how latent variables or hypothetical constructs depend upon, or are indicated by, the observed variables. It describes the mea-
surement properties (reliabilities and validities) of observed variables. The structural model instead specifies the causal relationships
among latent variables. The SEM methodology incorporates these two aspects to ascertain the fit between the variance–covariance matrix
observed in the sample data and that which is implied by the theoretical or research model.
First, we tested our framework models with the SEM approach, using the computer software program LISREL 8.30. With the measure-
ment model, convergent validity is assessed by (a) reliability of items, (b) composite reliability of constructs, and (c) average variance ex-
tracted (AVE). To assess reliability of items, we followed the suggestions of Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) to compute composite reliability.
A value of 0.70 or above is considered evidence of acceptable reliability. In this study, the loading of each item meets this criterion (Table 4).
Concerning internal consistency, composite reliability loadings for every construct (ranging from 0.83 to 0.93, as shown in Table 4) are well
above 0.70, which converge to form the benchmark for acceptable reliability. AVE reflects the overall proportion of indicator variance that
is attributable to the underlying construct. It is suggested to exceed 0.50 be deemed adequate convergent validity. Table 4 also shows that
AVE loading for every construct, ranging from 0.72 to 0.82, satisfies this requirement. In addition, discriminant validity is evaluated by
examining the relationship between correlations among constructs and the square root of AVEs. Table 5 shows that the square roots of
all the AVEs are greater than the correlations among constructs, indicating adequate discriminant validity of all the constructs.
In evaluating the structural model, the overall fit of the theoretical model (with the data) is assessed. In this study, seven fit indices were
used to test the fit of the model. The first one was the chi-square (v2) test, which showed a value of 241.08 with 196 degrees of freedom.
This is statistically at significance level (p < 0.05) implying that significant differences exist between the theoretical model (as shown in
Fig. 3) and the observations. Nevertheless, previous researchers also note that the chi-square test becomes more sensitive as the number
of indicators rises. Therefore, we adopt the ratio of the v2 statistic to its degrees of freedom, with values of less than 3 indicating acceptable
fit (Kelloway, 1998). The other fit indices adopted in this study were the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), with values
below 0.08 representing acceptable fit; comparative fit index (CFI), with values exceeding 0.9 indicating acceptable fit; goodness of fit index
(GFI), with values exceeding 0.9 indicating good fit; adjusted GFI (AGFI), with values exceeding 0.8 representing reasonable fit; normed fit

Table 5
Discriminant validity for measurement model.

Construct SO MA COH SA LE
SO 0.903
MA 0.635 0.856
COH 0.487 0.732 0.849
SA 0.613 0.512 0.631 0.896
LE 0.536 0.584 0.572 0.637 0.847

Note: SO: self-organization; MA: multi-agency; COH: cohesiveness; SA: system appropriation; LE: learning effectiveness.
Diagonals represent the square root of the average variance extracted, and other matrix entries are the factor correlations.

Fig. 3. Structural equation model.

 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799 797

Table 6
Standard coefficients and model fit indices.

Fit indices Measured result Criterion

Chi square/d.f. 1.23 <3.0
Comparative fit index (CFI) 0.957 >0.9
Goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.906 >0.9
Adjusted GFI (AGFI) 0.865 >0.8
Normed fit index (NFI) 0.932 >0.9
Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) 0.038 <0.05
Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.043 <0.08

index (NFI), with values of 0.9 or larger indicating acceptable fit; and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), with values less
than 0.05 indicating a good fit. Table 6 shows the various fit indices calculated for the model.
As the overall degree of fit is promising, we are encouraged to examine the magnitudes and significance of the path structural coeffi-
cients of the model shown in Table 7 and Table 8. All the coefficients of path are significant, i.e., C.R. (critical ratio) is greater than 1.96.
These are consistent with self-organization behavior, multi-agent-based mechanism, and cohesive capability of SIS having a significant po-
sitive impact on system appropriation (b = 0.826, b = 0.721, b = 0.705) and a positively significant effect on learning effectiveness
(b = 0.809). These results correspond to those of the earlier theoretical inference. Therefore, Hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4 were accordingly sub-
stantiated. Moreover, means and standard deviations of learning achievement are reported for both the ASCL and GWL environments in
Table 9. We employed ‘‘independent samples T test” to compare different types of learning effectiveness between the ASCL and GWL envi-
ronments. The on-line test (a multiple-choice test) examined only the basic concepts of students in Dreamweaver software. Therefore,
most students were likely to work alone and perform well. The two groups were not significantly different (p = 0.25) in on-line test per-
formance. However, the purpose of the hands-on application test was to evaluate students’ practical skills in designing a Web page. As the
size and complexity of Web page designs increased, so did the chances that students were getting help from others. For this reason, stu-
dents were likely to use collaborative learning skills and strategies. As shown in Table 9, we found the students in ASCL (85.86) outper-
formed their counterparts in the GWL (75.28) environment. The score differential was statistically significant (p = 0.00) in the hands-on
application test. We also found the average grades of the on-line and hands-on application tests of students in the ASCL environment
(86.72) are higher than those of students in the GWL environment (80.80) (p = 0.00). Thus, Hypothesis 5 is also substantiated. The results
indicate that our ASCL environment can provide stable and adaptive assistance for learning groups. On the contrary, GWL might be a
loosely structured group work environment which lacks adaptive assistant mechanisms.

Table 7
Results of structural equation model.

Variables Standardized coefficients beta (b) C.R.

Self-organization SO1 0.824a b

SO2 0.678a 6.683

SO3 0.715a 7.326
SO4 0.851a 8.732
Multi-agency MA1 0.749a b

MA2 0.825a 8.548

MA3 0.738a 7.862
MA4 0.726a 7.569
MA5 0.698a 6.835
Cohesiveness COH1 0.823a b

COH2 0.801a 9.827

COH3 0.672a 5.883
COH4 0.718a 7.127
COH5 0.752a 8.386
COH6 0.786a 8.728
System appropriation SA1 0.882a b

SA2 0.763a 9.738

SA3 0.804a 10.671
SA4 0.736a 8.723
SA5 0.892a 12.572
SA6 0.811a 11.432
SA7 0.723a 8.029
SA8 0.827a 12.313
SA9 0.693a 6.383
Learning Effectiveness LE1 0.746a b

LE2 0.728a 6.012

LE3 0.677a 5.626
LE4 0.808a 7.728
LE5 0.762a 6.428
LE6 0.836a 8.301
a
C.R. (critical ratio) > 1.96; using a significant level of .05, C.R. that exceed 1.96 would be considered significant.
b
The parameter compared by others is set to 1, therefore there is no C.R. it is determined as significant.
798 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799

Table 8
Results of the path structural coefficient.

Impact of variables Standardized coefficients beta (b) C.R.

a
SO ? SA 0.826 8.868
MA ? SA 0.721a 7.422
COH ? SA 0.705a 6.966
SA ? LE 0.809a 8.536

SO: self-organization; MA: multi-agency; COH: cohesiveness; SA: system appropriation; LE: learning effectiveness.
a
C.R. (critical ratio) > 1.96; using a significant level of .05, C.R. that exceed 1.96 would be considered significant.

Table 9
Means and standard deviations of learning achievement.

Variable (achievement) GWL ASCL

On-line test Hands-on application test Average On-line test Hands-on application test Average
N 176 176 N/A 192 192 N/A
Mean 86.32 75.28 80.80 87.58 85.86 86.72
Std. Deviation 9.38 13.72 11.36 8.98 11.08 10.28

Note: GWL, general web-based Learning; ASCL, ant swarm collaborative learning; N/A: not applicable.

6. Conclusions and further research

The World Wide Web is comprised of an enormous amount of unstructured, distributed, or multi-media data. Therefore, web-based
learning platforms should provide ways for information to be filtered, organized, and maintained to enhance learning effectiveness. Addi-
tionally, since members of web-based learning communities can only communicate in computer mediated ways, the group faces chal-
lenges not only to maintain its own global cohesiveness, but also to be able to adapt to changing mission priorities. In this paper, we
have presented our framework for computer-supported collaborative learning environments, and proposed an ASCL environment based
on ant-based intelligent agents that can support awareness and promotes opportunities for effective collaboration and learning in a dy-
namic web.
The first advantage of our SIS mechanism is that learners can obtain self-organization capability so as to respond adaptively and flexibly
to unstructured environments. Secondly, multi-agent-based modeling is a distributed computational method where a system is modeled as
a collection of autonomous decision-making entities that interact in non-trivial ways. Such distributed systems are beyond the capabilities
of an individual agent limited by its computing resources and perspectives. A reinforcement learning technique is applied to the web-based
learning model so that agents can collaboratively find the optimal path between a source node and a destination node through the positive
feedback mechanism. This decentralized architecture will be critical to the success of technologies that feature heterogeneous learners.
Finally, the primary characteristic of collective intelligence is that many agents run concurrently performing actions which affect the
behavior of other agents.
In conclusion, swarm intelligence can be leveraged to provide us with highly scalable and robust computational tools that, when applied
in the context of web-based collaborative learning, would enable SIS to handle computationally intensive tasks with more ease.
We have also posited that the structuration process influences the effectiveness of technology implementation as well as influencing the
impact of technology on the effectiveness of web-based collaborative learning activities. By means of this powerful structurational para-
digm, the AST approach has moved our thinking from predicting direct affects of technology on users to exploring the recursive shaping of
technology. This methodology has helped us understand how technology and group interaction can empower an organization’s perfor-
mance for the dynamic nature of learners’ decision, which is viewed as an appropriation process. The findings of our empirical test showed
that self-organization behavior, the multi-agent-based mechanism, and cohesive capability of SIS had a significant positive impact on sys-
tem appropriation which, in turn, had a positively significant impact on learning effectiveness. These results correspond to those of the
earlier theoretical inference. Consequently, we conclude SI technology can help learners adapt to the web-based collaborative learning
environment.
As new technologies evolve and more pervasive forms of technology emerge, wireless and mobile technologies such as the ad hoc net-
work provide abundant opportunities for information sharing and knowledge constructing, and affect the evolution of prevalent e-learning
use. Without the constraints of schedules or physical space, ubiquitous computing environments (Huang, Kuo, Lin, & Cheng, in press; Yang,
2006) allow learning to occur at any time and at any place. However, the challenge of the e-learning mechanism is not only to make infor-
mation available to learners but, more importantly, to supply the right resource at the right time in the right way (Fischer, 2001). The future
development of a ubiquitous learning environment should seamlessly integrate the advantages of an adaptive learning environment with
the usefulness of ubiquitous computing and the flexibility of mobile devices for further study.

References

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 159–174.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation for thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Blum, C. (2005). Ant colony optimization: Introduction and recent trends. Physics of Life Reviews, 2, 353–373.
Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., & Théraulaz, G. (1999). Swarm intelligence from natural to artificial systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., & Theraulaz, G. (2000). Inspiration for optimization from social insect behavior. Nature, 406, 39–42.
 Y.-M. Huang, C.-H. Liu / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 789–799 799

Bonabeau, E., & Meyer, C. (2001). Swarm intelligence: A whole new way to think about business. Harvard Business Review, 79, 106–114.
Chen, J. N., & Huang, Y. M. (2005). Applying dynamic fuzzy petri net to web learning system. Interactive Learning Environments, 13, 159–178.
Chou, S. W., & Liu, C. H. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: A learner control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21,
65–76.
Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23, 145–158.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Research, 35, 982–1005.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147.
Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1998). Developing a multidimensional measure of system-use in an organizational context. Information and Management, 33, 171–185.
Dorigo, M., & Gambardella, L. M. (1997). Ant colony system: A cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem. Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1,
53–66.
Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., & Colorni, A. (1996). Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics – Part B, 26, 29–41.
Fischer, G. (2001). User modeling in human–computer interaction. Journal of User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11, 65–86.
Giddens, A. (1977). Studies in social and political theory. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37,
479–507.
Gopal, A., Bosrom, R., & Chin, W. (1992). Applying adaptive structuration theory to investigate the process of group support systems use. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 9, 45–69.
Grassé, P. P. (1959). La reconstruction du nid et les coordinations interindividuelles chez bellicositermes natalensis et cubitermes sp. La théorie de la stigmergie: Essai
d’interprétation du comportement des termites constructeurs. Insectes Sociaux, 6, 41–81.
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of levels of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research,
26, 497–525.
Hargadon, A., & Fanelli, A. (2002). Action and possibility: Reconciling dual perspectives of knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 13, 290–302.
Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advance technologies: The case of computers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 307–313.
Huang, Y. M., Kuo,Y. H., Lin, Y. T., & Cheng, S. C. (in press). Toward interactive mobile synchronous learning environment with context-awareness service. Computers &
Education.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc..
Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (2001). Swarm intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Liu, C. H., Chiang, T. C., & Huang, Y. M. (2007). Assessment of effectiveness in web-based training on demand. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(3), 217–235.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. (2000). Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly,
24(4), 569–600.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143–169.
Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1989). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.),
Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173–193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74–102.
Prigogine, I. (1976). Order through fluctuation: Self-organization and social system. In E. Jantsch & C. H. Waddington (Eds.), Evolution and consciousness: Human systems in
transitions. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47, 332–351.
Rose, J. (1998) Evaluating the contribution of structuration theory to the IS discipline. In W. R. J. Baets (Ed.). Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems.
Euro-Arab Management School, Granada.
Semet, Y., Lutton, E., & Collet, P. (2003). Ant colony optimisation for E-learning: Observing the emergence of pedagogic suggestions. In IEEE SIS’03: IEEE swarm intelligence
symposium (pp. 46–52).
Serra, R., & Zanarini, G. (1990). Complex systems and cognitive processes. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Slavin, R. E. (1978). Students teams and achievement division. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 39–49.
Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40–62.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19, 561–570.
Vizine, A., deCastro, L., Hruschka, E., & Gudwin, R. (2005). Towards improving clustering ants: An adaptive ant clustering algorithm. Informatica, 29, 143–154.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, T. I., Wang, K. T., & Huang, Y. M. (2008). Using a style-based ant colony system for adaptive learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 2449–2464.
Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K. W., Steel, R. P., & Bennett, N. (1998). Does work group cohesiveness affect individual’s performance and organizational commitment? Across-level
examination. Small Group Research, 29, 472–494.
Weiss, G. (1999). Multiagent systems: A modern introduction to distributed artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. (1995). Intelligent agents – Theories, architectures and languages. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 890). Berlin: Springer.
Yang, S. J. H. (2006). Context aware ubiquitous learning environments for peer-to-peer collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 9(1), 188–201.