Changing relationship: Who is the learner and who is the teacher in the online educational landscape?

Dorit Maor
Murdoch University

This article focuses on the special role of students as discussion leaders and their engagement in the facilitation of online discussion in relation to the teacher's role. The methodology combined quantitative data of students' frequency behaviour with qualitative analysis of students' individual online contributions. Each contribution was analysed in relation to one of the six facilitation roles plus the direct instruction category. In the seven that were used to compare the discussion leader's role with the teacher's role, the discussion leaders performed higher than the teacher in the following: summing up and confirming, moving the discussion forward, focusing the discussion and debriefing. The teacher demonstrated more frequent behaviours in the following: direct instruction and encouraging and giving feedback. Scaffolding had a similar frequency for the discussion leader and the teacher with a slightly higher rate. The task given to each member to be a discussion leader enabled new relationships between the teacher and the learners and new relationships among the learners, with everyone being empowered, changing their learning experiences and promoting the learning of others in the community.

Introduction

This research utilises the same set of data as mentioned above (Maor, 2007) to understand the role of the student as discussion leader, and whether the discussion leader can replace a teacher in managing the discussion. This question was raised in previous studies of online learning (Johnson, Bishop, Holt, Stirling & Zane, 2001; Aviv, 2000). Although the first analysis reveals that cognitive and social processes are mutually interactive and overlapping in online learning, it is important to know who contributes to the facilitation of the cognitive learning and in what ways. This is the focus of the current paper.

In an attempt to transform information into knowledge in online teaching, greater emphasis needs to be placed on examining the nature and content of cognitive interactions (Heckman & Annabi, 2005; Penman & Lai 2003; Maor, 2007). One learner suggested that "the contribution of the community members to create good, interactive community of learners" held the community together, but at the same time another student pointed out that the "academic exchanges" held the community together (Maor, 2007). Either way, the intensive use of online discussion enables an analysis of the interactions and their content to answer the research questions.

Literature review

Research further suggests that to have meaningful learning the members of the community have to be socially connected and feel confident about the learning environment and trusting of other learners before achieving any cognitive gain (Conrad, 2005; Maor, 2003; Rovai, 2002). According to Brown (2001), when students perceive a close connection to an online learning community, they often place a higher priority on learning and spend more time devoted to it. This in return may result in more productive learning communities, which according to many researchers are essential for successful learning environments (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Squire & Johnson, 2000; Wenger, 1998). Communication and collaboration between the members of the community required adoption of personal responsibility and shared control while relying on fellow students for interpretation (Cleveland-Innes, Garrison & Kinsel, 2007).

The use of online discussion as an integral part of the online teaching is underpinned by a social constructivist approach to teaching and learning and in particular by the guided opportunities for interaction to co-construct knowledge (Carabajal, LaPointe & Gunawardena, 2003; Maor, 2003). Peer learning is part of the social fabric of the community and gives an opportunity for students to bring their variety of pre-experiential knowledge to the discussion and promotes dialogue and learning (Hendriks & Maor, 2003). In these interactions the members of successful online learning communities, according to Twigg (2001), often take on the role of the teacher more often than do students in traditional classrooms. Other studies (Johnson, 2001; Rogers, 2003) suggest that students from online communities tend to learn more from information added by their peers than from the teacher.

In Maor's study (2003), the role of facilitator was extended to include members of the community on a rotation basis to let them experience the responsibility of the teacher by presenting the weekly topic, posing relevant questions and providing a synthesis of the discussion (Maor, 2003). According to Ikpeze (2007), involving group members in rotational leadership style also helped them become a more cohesive team and each person's individual contribution was accounted for. Heckman & Annabi (2006) see the role of the teacher as "developing thoughtful and stimulating questions and raising issues that generate active participation" (p. 143). These studies suggest that students experience intellectual and leadership responsibilities while acting in the role of facilitator. Wallace (2003) advocates that, while members of the community help each other to make sense of information and ideas, the teacher should have a further responsibility to act as a mediator to focus and guide the discussion. In the current study the teacher examines the interaction to assess learning progress based on each student's online contributions to the community knowledge construction, and also analyses the discussion leader's ability to engage in question based facilitation and, to a lesser extent, content based presentations.

Methodology

To answer the research question, "what is the role of the student as discussion leader and can the discussion leader replace a teacher in managing the discussion", it is important to examine "what roles discussion leaders perform?" Therefore a further framework based on the work of Heckman and Annabi (2005) was employed. This framework focused on the teaching process out of the four of social process, cognitive process, teaching process and discourse process. The teaching process involved direct instruction and facilitation. This also allowed the coding of 'interactions' for the discussion leaders and for the teacher, against the roles of direct instruction or facilitating (Figure 1). The different categories of interactions (student-student, student-group, student-teacher and student-discussion leader) were condensed into two main groups: all student-student interactions and all teacher-student interactions.

A number of models for teacher's roles exists (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001). The selected model of facilitation (Figure 1) reflects the roles that the teacher and the discussion leader demonstrated in the current study. It also examines the extent to which the communication and interaction between the students and the teacher were active interactions (Palloff & Pratt, 1999) and exhibited collaborative learning (Harasim, 2000). The teaching process is described as giving direct instruction or facilitating. Facilitation was then coded to reflect a variety of forms: focusing the discussion, summing up and confirming, encouraging and giving feedback, scaffolding, moving the discussion forward and debriefing.

Figure 1: Types of interaction and facilitation

Qualitative content analysis enabled me to examine in more detail the specific categories of cognitive attributes, and compare the sub-categories in relation to the discussion leader's role. The number of interactions in each interactive category provided the quantitative dimension and enabled a comparison between the two types of interactions. Excerpts from the original online interaction are used to support and further demonstrate the nature of cognitive learning that took place during a semester of three consecutive cohorts. The data were generated from an exclusively online asynchronous discussion of university cohorts in three consecutive years. Nvivo, a software program for qualitative analysis (QSR, 2007), was used to categorise the interactions among the students and the teacher.

Results

Figure 2: Discussion leader and teacher facilitation

The analysis of the type and number of postings related to facilitation by the discussion leader and the teacher suggests that the teacher tends to give more direct instruction/content related postings and encouragement and giving feedback than the discussion leader. The direct instruction by the teacher contained 26% of the interactions compared with 12% posted by the discussion leaders during the five selected topics. Encouragement and giving feedback were 25% of the postings and were more frequently done by the teacher compared with 19% done by the discussion leader.

However, the discussion leaders' postings were higher in four types of facilitation: summing up and confirming (24% compared with 20% of the teacher's posting), focusing discussion (13% compared with 7% of the teacher's postings), moving the discussion forward (13% compared with 6%of the teacher's postings), and debriefing (8% compared with 5% of the teacher's postings). Scaffolding (11% compared with 12% of the teacher's postings) came after moving the discussion forward in terms of percentages and was very close for both the discussion leaders and the teacher, with the teacher having a slightly higher percentage of postings in this category.

The following excerpts from the postings serve as examples to illustrate the facilitation action in these categories. They are presented in the order from highest to lowest percentages based on the discussion leaders' types of facilitation. Before presenting the different types of facilitation, the next section begins with the task of direct instruction/posting content, which was the highest type of interaction by the teacher.

Direct instruction and presentation of content was implemented more frequently by the teacher and less so by the discussion leaders. For example:

This afternoon I attached a PDF of a reading by Gerald E. Hein, The Challenge of Constructivist Teaching. In it he shares his experiences teaching a Masters program consisting of students undertaking an Independent study program. (Rose, 2005)

For our discussion on OLP, we will discuss this until Thursday morning, Eastern Standard Time and then from then we will discuss the issue of BL. For the sessions on OLP, we have one reading to complete and a number of activities. (Geoff, 2006)

Please check the Power Point Presentation for week two in the lecture material, reflect on the reading but also on your colleagues' ideas and join the conversation. I expected your message once or twice during the week. My advice is always to write in a word document and then cut and paste into the WebCT discussion. (Teacher, 2004)

This week we have grappled with philosophy, starting with Socrates and the question: What is knowledge? We briefly read of the development of views of knowledge, Behaviourism and then to the work by Von Glasersfeld who expressed the concept of knowledge as dependent on the individual and their perception... (Rose, 2005)

Plenty of definitions of community in this thread and agreement with the definitions. I too agree that a community is a group of people who is working towards achieving a common goal in this case ... (Kate, 2006)

Some of the concepts that you used last week included: Community environment, personal touch, human factor, effective learning environment, connection, discussion.... This rich list is some of the new vocabulary that you are using as a learner in this online learning environment. (Teacher, 2004)

All of you raised some important concerns in our previous postings...
Brad in his message emphasises the formative assessment as a continuous feedback which increases the learner's involvement and motivation in the learning process. (Teacher, 2006)

The best part of the discussion was the level of reflection that you have all demonstrated. I don't think that if I explained or modelled the Discussion Leader's role better, your reflection ability would have been further improved and as Ryan stated, I would defeat my purpose of letting you grow into your role, and experience the process of constructivist type of learning within the community. (Teacher, 2004)

Thank you for your feedback on our unit assessment... I wanted you to be more engaged with this issue therefore I asked for your views. This posting also should serve as an example of summary for discussion leaders. Kate, your Weblog which is very good, created a new dilemma for me and the learning outcome for me as a course coordinator .... (Teacher, 2006)

Tim's response to this was particularly insightful. Is constructivism purely a technique that can be switched on/off at will? I like Tim's example of his Career Ed course and the response of his students. (Gary, 2004)

... but many of you are too critical of your own performances. You have all done well with each adding their own individuality to the role. Don't forget we are just starting along this learning continuum of constructivist teaching. (Mia, 2004)

I agree with Kate that modelling is an important factor for communities, especially online communities like ours. The community leaders have a responsibility to other members to ensure that the conditions for membership are clear and that approved behaviours are encouraged. (Brad, 2006)

We have to ask ourselves which aspects of 1 to 5 above have been utilised in this course, and then we have to suggest ways in which the course could be improved. (Ryan, 2004)

Again I ask what are the characteristics of the interactions that most increased your learning? (Brad, 2006)

This was a good session; however, I would like you to integrate more of the literature in your posting and even use quotes to support your views. I also noticed some good interaction between the learners in this group. (Teacher, 2006)

We've had many excellent individual contributions, with people sharing their piece of the jigsaw. Now it's time to fit it all together. (Ryan, 2004)

Based on our understanding of different teaching methods and the examples that we've read of in this unit, what teaching approaches would you like to implement in your own teaching situation? (Susan, 2005)

Be sure to read this week's reading: SOCIAL CONSTRCUTIVISM AND E-LEARNING. There are three readings this week and you are required to answer question 2. Gerald will lead the discussion. Please support Gerald and let us keep this activity till the end of this week. (Teacher, 2006)

If you need some help in getting going this week, you might use the following questions as a starter. These questions are just a breakdown of this week's two focus questions. (Ryan, 2004)

As a starter I would like to share with you some of my thoughts. When I revisited my postings in Week 4, I was surprised by the lack of personalization of the postings. They all seem somewhat stilted. (Brad, 2006)

We have to be very mindful how we define a research study. Articles that simply described how an online course was developed is not research, even those that added a few quotes on how participants evaluated the experience is not fully research. (Teacher, 2006)

I felt like the chat session got "warmed up" fast enough to really start some interesting discussion. I actually felt like we were having a conversation, rather than a discussion, and now I am thinking there is quite a difference between the two. (Kath, 2005)

Discussion

As early as 1992, Henri examined the quality of online postings by focusing on social, interactive, meta-cognitive and cognitive dimensions and attempted to qualitatively define the nature and content of online interactions that sustain cognitive development and meaningful learning. His analysis further developed into different studies such as Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson (1997) who examined the quality of online learning and others who conducted discourse analysis to ascertain different aspects of online learning (Hendriks & Maor, 2004; Marra, 2006).

The methodology in this study combines quantitative data of students' frequency behaviour with qualitative analysis of students' individual contributions online. Each contribution was analysed in relation to one of the six facilitation roles plus direct instruction. The type of teaching strategy of peer led discussion enables the students to immerse themselves in the online experience and to learn and share ideas and frustrations with other learners. The immersion suggests that the discussion leaders immersed themselves in the community of learners and led the discussion on a rotational basis as part of the online module design. Through the immersive approach (Al-Mahmood & McLoughlin, 2004), students gained a great deal of insight into how to transform their practice by taking a teacher's perspective through the firsthand discussion leader facilitation skills.

Heckman and Annabi (2005), in a comparison study between face to face and asynchronous learning networks (ALN) discussions, found that "student-to-student interactions in ALN contain a greater proportion of high level cognitive indicators than do student-to-teacher interaction" (p. 1). They also suggested that teacher presence is much greater in face to face discussions and that two-thirds of students' utterances online were responses to other students and were longer in ALN while teacher utterances were shorter. They also found that more than half of the instances of the teaching process in online discussion was performed by students rather than the teacher. These results inspired the current study and encouraged me to conduct a careful content analysis to answer the research question. The results from a different study conducted by Penman and Lai (2003) suggest that it is possible to achieve higher order thinking in asynchronous learning environments. They also found that the style of lecturing is important in facilitating online interaction.

In an attempt to develop the concept of community of learners, Heckman and Annabi (2006) suggested that "students are expected to consolidate their learning by teaching one another" (p. 146). In ALNs, over half of the student utterances were responses to other students. Also, they found "in the ALN discussions, virtually all instances of identifying agreement and disagreement were performed by students themselves and not by the teacher" (p. 146). These results were slightly different from the current study that found over half of the interactions occurred between the teacher and the students and to a lesser extent between the students themselves.

Not many studies have explored online teaching in a peer led online discussion (Nicholson & Bond, 2003; Maor, 2003; Ikpeze, 2007) or the group processes in online group collaboration involving teachers in a peer led context. There are two issues related to this study: the role of the group facilitator in online small group learning; and the process and impact of peer led group discussion on students' learning. It becomes a common routine in many online courses for the facilitator to adjust the planned curriculum, to constantly contribute and seek input from students. The students, on the other hand, responded on a regular basis and started to take leadership responsibilities in the online community.

This study found that the students' discussion leader's role enabled and promoted interactions. These interactions also created a greater commitment among the community members, which sustained the discussion during the semester long course. In addition to intense interactions, the role of the discussion leader prompted empowerment and active learning, which were two goals intended in creating this unit. This also changed the role of the teacher of this unit to a co-facilitator and co-learner. However, it was important to have the teacher there for encouragement and feedback and direct instruction on specific points.

Conclusion and recommendations

Ikpeze (2007) concluded that "unless participants in online discourse are self motivated, committed and share a common group goal, the quality and quantity of the discussions may be in jeopardy" (p. 400). I can make an inference from my study that reinforces this statement, suggesting that, at least in this instance, online learning is more suitable to mature age students who are more likely to be motivated than younger, undergraduate students.

This study adds to a number of research studies on online learning by looking at records of online discussion to answer the research question of the role of discussion leaders and whether they can replace the teacher in online discussion. According to Nicholson and Bond (2003), it is possible for adult learning to obtain meaning through collaborative learning with minimal input from instructors. The role of rotational leadership, which was examined in this study, helped learners to achieve the learning outcomes of the course. Clear goals and expectations also helped to inspire the group to achieve learning outcomes and to create a community of learners.

To answer the research question of whether the discussion leader can replace the teacher, the quantitative data suggest that the discussion leaders fulfilled most of the facilitation roles and the leadership experience provided them with the opportunity to be highly interactive, reflective and understand the new relationship between the online teacher as a facilitator and the learners in the changing educational landscape. However, the qualitative data suggest that the lecturer scaffolded the learners into reflection and interaction and guided them to immerse themselves in the online experience. Occasional social or cognitive challenges could not be resolved without the intervention of the teacher. In summary, the task given to each member to be a discussion leader enabled new relationships between the teacher and the learners and new relationships among the learners, with everyone being empowered, changing their learning experiences and promoting the learning of others in the community.

References

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17. http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/pdf/v5n2_anderson.pdf

Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2). http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/pdf/v4n2_aviv.pdf

Brown, R. (2001). The process of community building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18-35. http://www.sloan-c-wiki.org/JALN/v5n2/pdf/v5n2_brown.pdf

Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D. & Gunawardena, C.N. (2003). Group development in online learning communities. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 217-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, R. & Kinsel, E. (2007). Role adjustment for learners in an online community of inquiry: Identifying the challenges of incoming online learners. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(1), 1-15.

Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1-20. http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/viewFile/78/59

Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A. & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.

Heckman, R. & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 7. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/heckman.html

Heckman, R. & Annabi, H. (2006). How the teacher's role changes in on-line case study discussions. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(2), 141-150.

Hendriks, V. & Maor, D. (2004). Quality of students' communicative strategies delivered via computer-mediated communications. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(1), 5-32.

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A.R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Ikpeze, C. (2007). Small group collaboration in peer-led electronic discourse: An analysis of group dynamics and interactions involving preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 383-407.

Johnson, E. M., Bishop, A., Holt, A., Stirling, J. & Zane, J. (2001). Reflections in cyberspace: Web conferencing for language teacher education. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 169-186. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet17/johnson.html

Lee, J., Carter-Wells, J., Glaeser, B., Ivers, K. & Street, C. (2006). Facilitating the development of a learning community in an online graduate program. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 13-34.

Lee, Y.-F. & Nguyen, H. (2007). Get your degree from an educational ATM: An empirical study in online education. International Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 31-40.

Liu, X., Magjuka, R., Bonk, C. & Lee, S.-H. (2007). Does sense of community matter? An examination of participant's perceptions of building learning communities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9-24.

Maor, D. (2003). Teacher's and students' perspectives on on-line learning in a social constructivist learning environment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(2), 201-218.

Maor, D. (2007). The cognitive and social processes of how university students experience online learning. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/maor.pdf

Marra, R. (2006). A review of research methods for assessing content of computer-mediated discussion forums. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3), 243-267.

Nicholson, S. & Bond, N. (2003). Collaborative reflection and professional community building: An analysis of preservice teachers' use of an electronic discussion board. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 259-279.

Pallof, R. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Penman, M. & Lai, K-W. (2003). Synchronous communication and higher-order thinking in a tertiary course in occupational therapy. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4), 387-404.

Qualitative Solutions Research (QSR) (2007). NVivo 7 [computer software]. http://www.qsrinternational.com/

Reeves, T. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97-116.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th edition): New York: The Free Press.

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/79/153

Rovai, A. P. & Barnum, K. T. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interaction and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57-73. http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol18.1/rovai.pdf

Squire, K. & Johnson, C. (2000). Supporting distributed communities of practice with interactive television. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(1), 23-43.

Twigg, C. (2001). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference. Troy, NY: National Center for Academic Transformation. http://www.center.rpi.edu/Monographs/Innovations.html

Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 241-280.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Author: Dr Dorit Maor, Senior Lecturer in Tertiary and Adult Education School of Education, Murdoch University South Street, Murdoch WA 6150, Australia Email: d.maor@murdoch.edu.au Web: http://www.education.murdoch.edu.au/staff/dorit_maor.html Please cite as: Maor, D. (2008). Changing relationship: Who is the learner and who is the teacher in the online educational landscape? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 627-638. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/maor.html