Figure 1: A top level page in the web conference (Discus)
| Australian Journal of Educational Technology 2001, 17(2), 169-186. |
AJET 17 |
| E. Marcia Johnson The University of Waikato |
| Ann Bishop Auckland, New Zealand |
| Anna Holt Auckland University of Technology |
| Jennifer A. Stirling University of Otago |
| Janice Zane UNITEC, New Zealand |
This paper reports on an in depth evaluation of a distance format Applied Linguistics course in which web based computer conferencing was used as a tool to support student knowledge construction and collaborative group work. Students and their teacher reflected on what they expected from the course, whether or not computer supported discussion was effective for personal learning, and how e-learning environments could be improved. The findings are reported within categories of social cohesion and the role of online discussion to support meaningful experiential learning. More generally, the paper discusses how situated evaluation can help educators gain a better understanding of the roles of task, structure, and language use in e-learning environments.
Throughout our research, we have recognised the need for situated, measured evaluations of what we have implemented so that we can develop understanding from the personal perspectives of both teachers and learners (Bruce & Peyton, 1999). As part of our on-going evaluations of how computer supported learning can be used most effectively for teaching, we are interested in considering both implicit and explicit aspects of online instruction. Of particular interest is the role that technology can play in the creation and maintenance of social relationships and the role of experiential learning in developing complex electronic literacy skills that teachers can then apply in their own language classrooms. We are also interested in our students' reactions to computer based learning environments and their evaluations of what was most effective for their own learning. Although data have been collected from a number of courses, the reflections of students and the instructor in one particular MA level course are discussed in this article.
In addition, we were mindful that "although much of the rhetoric around online classrooms focuses on collaboration, it is important to point out that online classrooms are not necessarily collaborative in nature" (Ashton, Roberts, & Teles, 2000, p. 1). Online course designers are guided (as are all teachers) by their underlying beliefs and assumptions about what constitutes good instructional practice. A key element in the course design process, then, becomes reflection on the selection and articulation of instructional tasks and learning goals - the process of course planning (Woods, 1996).
Although the number of course participants was not large, this has had the advantage of providing a rich and manageable dataset from which reflections about the nature of collaborative, knowledge-building in an online environment could be drawn.
Figure 1: A top level page in the web conference (Discus)
We established five separate discussion areas for the students: assignment discussion, article discussion, class announcements, general discussion, and self introductions. Students were encouraged to use all discussion areas, but were required (as part of an assessed task) to use only one area, article discussion.
All students provided detailed and rich reflections in the questionnaires and their responses have been grouped according to four interrelated themes:
Hara and Kling (2000) in their review of a computer supported course reported high levels of student frustration, at least partly because students encountered numerous technical problems, yet received little support from their instructor (who was herself a novice computer user). Although technical problems can be distressing for students, they are at a surface level and can be explicitly addressed at the outset. We prepared simple introductory documentation, with screen shots, to guide students through the process of accessing Discus and provided a number of URLs for locating additional information about computers. M. Johnson was also readily available, either through the web conference or email, to assist with solving technical problems. Even though the participants had varying levels of computer competence, this initial level of support seems to have been adequate.
Once students were online, we wanted to know if their approach to learning had been affected by using the web conference for collaborative work. Some students believed that they had changed their approach to learning, but others felt that it was their motivation to learn that had been affected.
S6: The step by step instructions to getting hooked up to the online tasks were clear and it all worked well. S5: My computer skills were really not adequate at all for the course but the course made them adequate!! That is in order to complete the course requirements I was 'forced' to develop internet skills, which I did by following the instructions provided.
The structure of the course was also a feature about which we wanted feedback - particularly the mix of learning activities, which included face to face discussions and presentations, online tasks, and 'traditional' paper based activities (academic research and writing). The course participants clearly felt that the combination of tasks had been an effective way for them to learn.
S1: I felt I changed from being a "passive" learner into a more active one, but this may be because the level of the course was different to previous courses, Most of my university career to date had consisted of sitting in a lecture theatre writing notes, and regurgitating them at exam time. I can't ever remember ever being asked what I thought about anything. S3: I'm sure I will continue to have to go through the same processes of learning, but having been introduced to this swift access to input from knowledgeable others has added a new dimension of excitement and anticipated engagement to my thoughts of learning in the future.... . So, basically, I feel invigorated and motivated as a learner in a new and exciting way.
Having face to face interaction as a component of the course was clearly appreciated, but it is not an absolute requirement. In many courses it is not even an option. This idea will be explored in more detail in following sections.
S3: I did a lot of learning through the online communication part of the course which really brought home to me some of the literacy issues which were at the heart of the course, as well as issues to do with what's going on in the mind when we interact via this mode. I would not, however, have found this effective on its own - a combination of academic writing assignments, face to face discussions, presentation and online tasks was most effective for me. S5: I really liked the combination of delivery methods. Although I feel most comfortable with the 'traditional' paper based activities I found that there were enormous advantages to the online activities in a distance teaching course. It kept all of us in contact with what was happening at Waikato so that I continued to feel part of that University community, as well as the group.
However, using a mix of activities and providing clear organisational structures, specifying how and when task based work is to be completed, is essential. In online formats, where the teacher has no physical presence, the importance of task structure to guide and sustain teaching cannot be stressed enough. Students also believed that this was the case.
S5: I felt that it was important to have a formal structure for the online discussion task, and essential to have a definite schedule. Because this was a distance course all the students had a much wider range of other commitments than full time students. By providing a definite schedule it enabled us to integrate the demands of the discussion postings into the other varied aspects of our lives.
More deeply we wanted to know whether or not collaborative learning and group knowledge building had actually occurred. While students seemed to appreciate and value the group interaction on an affective level, they were not entirely convinced that they had been involved in an online knowledge building community.
S6: [online participation] Personally, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the discussion groups. This resulted in my having to be more wary of over-contributing than under-contributing. I found myself trying to hold back until others had contributed - especially as I had read the studies outlining the dilemma of having some students dominant in online discussions, just as in geographically bound groups! S3: [after the class meeting] Having the real person in mind did give me a greater sense of having an actual discussion and helped to clarify why each group member took up a particular issue or aspect of an issue. The decisions I made about my input were affected by this to some extent. I also had a greater feeling of actually conducting a bit of a dialogue since, knowing about some of the others' personal interests and experience, I could direct some parts of my contributions directly towards these.
The transcript analysis provides some illumination here with the nature of the students' online discourse being reflected in Figure 2. The overall results show that student communication was dominated by academic monologues - those episodes in which participants reflected on the content of an article, but without explicit links to ideas expressed by other contributors. The extent to which students used expressives or social language was limited as were their postings about administrative or technical problems.
S6: I quickly learnt which of the others was likely to contribute items of real value. This is not to say I was dismissive of the others, but just really appreciative of some. S5: The first few postings did not seem to have much depth of analysis and there was not much interaction. Each student - including me - seemed to be reacting to the posting as an individual rather that reacting and interacting with what the others had written. However I felt that this definitely changed during the course and the discussions became more interactive and thus more meaningful.
Figure 2: Overall discussion patterns of students
However, we wanted to follow the 'hunch' of the student who felt that academic interaction had increased over the months. To this end, we compared student discussions at the beginning of the course with those in the last two months.
Figure 3 shows that 'academic monologue' dominated the communication patterns, accounting for almost 72% of the students' online writing during the first couple of months of the course, while academic interaction accounted for only 15% of the discussion.
Figure 3: Students' discussions at the beginning of the course
With practice and experience, academic interaction did increase by the end of the course (Figure 4). While we concur with the students' beliefs that their in class experiences, leading as they did to a deeper sense of personal community, influenced their communications, we don't believe that the face to face meeting explained all of the change. Kern (2000: 224) in his discussion of electronic literacy states that "literacy involves familiarity with the conventions of texts - how they are arranged and structured - and knowledge of how to use those conventions to design meaning. Reading and writing electronic texts draws upon many of the same conventions used in printed texts, but also involves acquiring additional conventions that are both procedural and conceptual in nature". Consistent with the change in how students communicated from the beginning to the end of the course, we suggest that as they became more literate in this new medium and internalised aspects of electronic literacy, their online communication became more interactive. One of the students indicated this:
S5: Yes; I certainly found it was a lot easier to communicate after I had met the other students. However as the Block course was half way through the course there was also the factor of gaining more confidence with using the technology by that time.
Figure 4: Students' discussions at the end of the course
What was also relevant was the feedback that students provided about their development of an online writing style - specifically whether or not they had modified their writing to suit the new medium. Reaction to the question was mixed; even those who felt that they had modified their style stated that their writing remained formal, not conversational, throughout the task.
S3: We had to also apply the information literacy skills we had been reading about and discussing - not just finding the article but discriminating, analysing, evaluating. The process of doing this really illuminated the electronic literacy issues we were confronting. S5: Using the technology gave more relevance to the issues that were being considered. In fact I cannot imagine doing this course without using the technology. It would be rather like learning about conventional writing without knowing how to use a pen and paper.
In the case of this task, we believe that the formal nature of the students' writing has been influenced by the language used to describe the task in the course outline. By specifying a requirement for two 'substantive' comments in the task description, we may have inadvertently implied that self contained monologues were required. Although formal writing is not necessarily a problem in online writing, we believe that it did inhibit a more natural flow of ideas between course participants.
S5: It [writing] was closer to formal spoken language than written language. This may have been because there was time to consider what to write so it was a bit more formal than a face-to-face discussion. Probably my writing style was closer to a formal oral presentation than academic writing. S6: My style was less formal. This was an interesting dilemma at first, and I actually checked out style with our lecturer to ensure I was not out of line. Interestingly, as we progressed in the course, and became more engrossed in content, and more knowledgeable, I think we all became more formal.
This finding points to a need for much more carefully worded task specification than one would need in the regular classroom where expectations can be clarified quickly through the exchange of spoken language. It also suggests the need to discuss student interpretations of the teacher's written language before online discussions become rooted in a particular style of interaction. Online discourse, inherently slow as it is, can become stilted. One of the students in the course suggested that more than two comments should have been required, but that each contribution should have been much shorter. This might have facilitated a more rapid exchange of ideas and might also have stimulated a more conversational writing style among contributors.
An extension to the previous question was whether or not this group would be willing to use web conferencing in their own classroom teaching. Reaction was somewhat mixed, ranging from very positive to tentative. Given that the process of implementing innovations is a slow one, and involves personal change on the part of participants, this finding is not surprising.
S3: It is going to be impossible for educators, no matter what area of education they are in, to ignore the growing pressure to meet more and more of their students' learning needs online. By opening my eyes to what those learning needs actually are (rather than what students may think they are, e.g. just get lots of information from the net) and what the nature of the challenge is that educators face, I have been put in touch with what I will need to keep learning, where caution is called for when developing or delivering online courses, and many of the literacy issues attendant on using technology in the classroom.
S5: Yes I would definitely be willing to use computer supported tasks with my own second language students as I think that online communication is a very non-threatening way for students to experiment with a new language and so it can provide them with the confidence to communicate in face to face situations. The enormous advantage is that it gives them time to reflect on what they are trying to express. S1: I teach small children, and I don't know that it would be viable for them (after all, I'm still trying to teach them to read!). In another situation, I would probably have a go - in a very limited way I think.
One of the first tasks in this course was for students and the instructor to write a self introduction - a standard task in many online courses. However, once students had written their introductions, they did not visit that discussion folder again. The task was inadequate for establishing a sense of group. What Palloff and Pratt (1999) have suggested is that not only do students need to post self introductions, but they need to be required, as part of the task, to comment on what other students have written so as to promote personal interaction. Otherwise, self introductions simply become empty monologues that fail to stimulate the early establishment of a group dynamic. This is particularly critical when students never meet face to face.
Another key aspect of online tasks is that they need to be clearly structured, closely linked into content related issues, and they need to be assessed. As stated earlier, several discussion areas were established for students, but the only ones used extensively were those related to required (assessed) tasks. One of the students summed this up neatly.
Tasks also need to be structured so that they explicitly encourage group collaboration, and there are excellent examples of how, in the 'traditional' classroom, this can be done (Ohio State University, 1998). Course developers need to experiment and adapt collaborative tasks that are known to be effective in face to face mode and, through situated evaluations, learn which approaches are most effective in an online instructional format.
S5: Although the site offered a variety of forums little use was made of any except the 'compulsory' one that was being graded. One of the reasons for this is common to all courses, where, because of time restraints students tend to only do tasks that are graded - unfortunately.
Based on this experience, we recommend that as with face to face teaching which typically occurs within clearly defined time slots, the online teacher needs to allocate blocks of time to teaching, and refrain from checking online work outside of those times. Failure to establish clear time limits, with students, colleagues, and self, can lead to unreasonable expectations about the level of a teacher's participation in the course. This idea relates closely to the role of task structure, but from the perspective of the teacher's management of work.
In addition, careful use of language to nurture a collaborative group feeling is another way in which teachers can do online instruction. For example, consistent with previous online courses taught by M. Johnson, 'expressives' and other social speech acts are used frequently to keep the conversation flowing and to maintain a sense of group (see Figure 5). It is also noteworthy that many of the 'administrative/ technical' comments were made in anticipation of assignment deadlines, or to provide additional details about course requirements. They were not necessarily made in response to direct questions from students, but instead were intended to prevent potential problems from occurring.
This finding suggests that preparing tutors for online courses needs to include explicit training in the different types of written language that can be used to facilitate and guide students, to sustain a group dynamic, and to provide academic input.
Figure 5: Online discussion patterns of the teacher
In summary, it seems clear that task structure and more specifically, the written language used to describe tasks is a key element in computer supported learning. Similarly, far from having a reduced role in online teaching, instructors need to build careful structures to organise their own work so as to sustain good teaching without becoming overwhelmed. This also suggests use of organisational structures, such as was done here, that place some of the responsibility for task management in the hands of the students. If such work is assessed, then students can assume responsibility for directing group tasks while gaining practice in online classroom management - precisely the types of skills that they will need in their own teaching.
Further, each implementation of computer supported teaching has differences, both subtle and large (Bruce & Peyton, 1999), and only by understanding the nuances of particular teaching episodes can practitioners begin to realise the potential of technology in the classroom. In the case of this evaluation, inclusion of students' voices enriched what could be learned and is consistent with how we can better understand instructional practice. Transcript analysis on its own would not have provided the types of deeper insights into complex teaching and learning processes that were made possible by inclusion of participants' perspectives. As we continue our research into the development of effective strategies to support both students and teachers in e-learning environments, we plan to include different types of evaluation techniques and data so that we can further refine and streamline our approaches to teaching. Through a gradual building up of knowledge, we may not discover all the answers to structuring online learning environments, but we may at least begin to ask better questions.
Bruce, B., & Peyton, J. K. (1999). Literacy development in network-based classrooms: Innovation and realizations. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2). [verified 16 Aug 2001]
http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v1n2/bruce/index.html
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gebhard, J. G., & Oprandy, R. (1999). Language teaching awareness: A guide to exploring beliefs and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2000). Students' distress with a web based distance education course. CSI Working Paper [Essay] [verified 16 Aug 2001] http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/wp00-01.html
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. JCMC, 6(1). [verified 16 Aug 2001]
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html
Johnson, E. M. (in press). Online web based discussion and language teacher education: The effects of syllabus design on language production. MOSAIC: A Journal for Language Teachers - Special Issue: New Technologies in the Language Learning Classroom.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mason, R., & Weller, M. (2000). Factors affecting students' satisfaction on a web course. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2), 173-200 [verified 16 Aug 2001] http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/mason.html
Muirhead, B. (2000). Enhancing social interaction in computer-mediated distance education. Educational Technology and Society, 3(4), 1-11. [verified 16 Aug 2001]
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_4_2000/v_4_2000.html
Ohio State University (1998). Teaching at the Ohio State University: A handbook, 1998. [verified 16 Aug 2001]
http://www.osu.edu/education/ftad/Publications/TeachingHandbook
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wildner, S. (2000). Technology integration into preservice foreign language teacher education programs. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 223-250.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
| Authors: E. Marcia Johnson PhD, Lecturer, Applied Linguistics and CALL Department of General and Applied Linguistics, The University of Waikato Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand 2001 marcia@waikato.ac.nz
Ann Bishop, Auckland, New Zealand Please cite as: Johnson, E. M., Bishop, A., Holt, A., Stirling, J. and Zane, J. (2001). Reflections in cyberspace: Web conferencing for language teacher education. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 169-186. http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet17/johnson.html |
Print version errata: Replace all five occurrences of 'S2:' with 'S3:' (web version corrected 3 Sep 2001)