“Beyond e-moderating: Building on-line learning communities

across international boundaries”

Dr Pat JefferiesDe Montfort University,

Bedford

Beyond “e-moderating” (Salmon, 2000)

• Asynchronous Computer Conferencing: strategies for a “blended learning” approach – beyond “e-moderating” (Salmon, 2000)

– Theoretical perspective - underlying concepts and beliefs of computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL)

• Pedagogical and ethical issues

– Action Research - Fieldwork studies• Qualitative and Quantitative

Some of the Issues

• Use of technology – dependent upon: – theoretical perspective of tutors/learners

• goal oriented, emancipatory

– institutional constraints• progression rates, expectations

– ‘political’ constraints• league tables, public expectations,

professional bodies

– learner expectations– tutor expectations

Institution

Tutors/Learners

TechnologyVLEs

MLEsOther Resources

Government/Public expectations

Professional bodies

Learning

Some of the influencing factors

Theories of learning/education

Ethics

SENDA

A definition of Learning? (Koschmann, 1994)

Acquisition metaphor

Participation metaphor

Transaction metaphor

Dimensions of learning (Adapted from Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1998)

Control of the Learning Environment

Participation/ Acquisition Learner

Peer Group

Instructor

Transaction

Transmission/ Acquisition

Socioculturalism

Constructivism (Social)

Collaborativism

Objectivism

Constructivism (Individual)

Learning

is

Abstractions Personally

Experienced Context is

Pedagogical techniques for networked learning

• One-alone – Web pages, databases, libraries, journals

• One-to-one: the email paradigm– negotiating learning contracts, tutorials

• One-to-many: the bulletin board paradigm– lecture notes, noticeboards, FAQs

• Many-to-many: the conferencing paradigm– seminars, discussion groups, brainstorming

Dimensions of learning

Control of the Learning Environment

Participation/Acquisition Learner

Peer Group

Instructor

Transaction

Acquisition/ Transmission

Socioculturalism

Constructivism (Social)

Collaborativism

Objectivism

Constructivism (Individual)

Learning

is

Abstractions Personally

Experienced Context is

EmailTutorialsQuizzes

Discussion groups

Web pagesPowerpoint

Theoretical frameworks

• Using technology– Mason (1998)

• Content + Support Model• Wrap-around Model• Integrated Model

• Computer conferencing– Salmon (2000)

• E-moderating

Getting the right “blend”• Why am I using it?

– Educational rationale• What technology is to

be used and what is it to be used for?

• When will the technology be used?

• Who will use the technology– Ethical issues

• Where will the technology be used?

• How will the technology be used?

Strategies are needed for: – implementation

• addressing pedagogical, ethical and technical issues

– integration with face-to-face

– moderation (?)– monitoring, assessment

and evaluation

Fieldwork studies

• Asynchronous computer conferencing – (BSCW, FirstClass, WebCT, Blackboard)

• 7 studies conducted over 5 years• Final year computing undergraduates:

– UK, USA, Ireland, Denmark– Virtual work groups set up (6 students)

• Module studied:– Computing & Ethics/Professional Issues in

Computing

Research questions addressed

• “What is the role of the teacher in using Asynchronous Computer Conferencing (ACC) to support CSCL in a campus-based environment– Is scaffolding/moderation a necessary or sufficient

condition for success?”;

• “How can ACC be ‘authentically’ integrated into F2F contact sessions?”;

• “How could use of ACC be assessed to support achievement of learning outcomes”?

• “What kinds of communication patterns emerge in using ACC and are students able to communicate productively?”

Aims of the research• To identify the major factors that influence the

use of ACC within a campus-based HE context• To provide a pedagogically sound foundation to

underpin and justify the design of a “mixed mode” context for supporting learning – a blended, distributed on-line pedagogy.

• To provide guidelines that can support the successful integration of ACC within a campus-based, but geographically dispersed HE context.

Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer, 1981)

Zone of proximal development

Types of analysis undertaken

• Discourse– cognitive value of externalisation through social

interaction (Collins, Brown and Holum, 1991)

• Conversation analysis – Community of Inquiry model –

(Archer, Garrison, Anderson and Rourke, 2001).

• Interaction models– Transaction analysis (Freeman 1978/79)– Adjacency Models (Wortham, 1999)

Community of Inquiry Model (Archer, Garrison, Anderson and Rourke, 2001).

• Social presence• Teaching presence• Cognitive presence

– reflects higher-order knowledge acquisition and application related to critical thinking.

• “Triggering” – (initiation phase of enquiry), • “Exploration” – (a divergent phase), • “Integration” – (constructing shared meaning) • “Resolution” – (resolving the issues or

problem posed in the first phase )

Transaction Analysis (Freeman, 1978/79)

The “star” network pattern

Transaction Analysis (Freeman, 1978/79)

• The five nodes below are fully-connected – "all-channel."

The "all-channel" network pattern

p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 Co(Pk)

p1 - 1 1 1 1 4

p2 1 - 1 1 1 4

p3 1 1 - 1 1 4

p4 1 1 1 - 1 4

p5 1 1 1 1 - 4

Adjacency Matrix (Wortham, 1999)

Other types of analyses undertaken

• Comparison with team roles/learning styles– Team roles (Belbin, 1981)– Learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1986)

• Groupworking– Group development - Tuckman (1965)

• Moral judgement (Lind, 2001)

• Degree of moderation – E-moderating (Salmon, 2000)

• Student/staff feedback– Questionnaires, semi-structured interviews

• Comparison of Assessment outcomes

Findings from the literature:

• Influencing factors:– The role of the tutor.

(Mitchell, 2001; Jacques, 1995)

– Institutional factors (Becher, 1989) and orientations towards academic development. (Land, 2001)

– Group dynamics. (Banet and Hayden, 1977)

• forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning (Tuckman, 1965)

• “free-rider effect”, “status sensitivity”, “sucker effect” (Lipponen, 1999)

Findings from the literature:

• Influencing factors:– The teaching strategies used to

prompt or support learning. (Stiles, 2002; Grout, 2002; Booth et al., 2000)

– The design and characteristics of VLEs. (Shih, 1998)

– The learning context and individual learning styles. (Knowles, 1978; Connor, 1996)

– Staff/student attitudes towards Assessment (Boud, 2002; Rust, 2002; Norton et al, 2001)

Findings from the Fieldwork Studies

• A clear outline of expectations needs to be given to students to boost confidence in using the ACC medium.

• Students need to be encouraged to socialize as a first activity to build trust

• Both tutors and students need to have both extrinsic and intrinsic reward for using the system in order to stimulate motivation.

• Tutor intervention – reduces the number of messages posted

within the conferencing environment – means that threads are often terminated– promotes a “star” pattern of transaction to

be evidenced

Findings from the Fieldwork Studies

• Inclusion of a task focus increases quality and quantity of contribution as evidenced by message postings.

• Overall module grades in each of the fieldwork studies evidenced an improved pass rate in the fieldwork studies where – tutor intervention within the conferencing

environment was not undertaken and – where there was a higher degree of access

and message posting evidenced (e.g. fieldwork study 6 – an 84% pass rate)

Findings from the Fieldwork Studies

FwS1 FwS2

FwS3

FwS4

FwS5

FwS6

FwS7

Total of students

56 32 103 61 41 117 48

Total of messages posted

1007 49 694 169 549 2624 1172

Tutor intervention

No Yes No No Some No No

Assessed Task

No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Recommendations• Choose an appropriate, focussed module that

has a discursive nature requiring development of critical analysis.

• Design module delivery to take into account Pedagogical, Ethical and Technological issues (the PET framework).

• Develop strategies for integrating use of the ACC environment into the F2F sessions

• Define how such use is going to be assessed. • “Brief” students as to:

– the monitoring that will be undertaken and – how they are expected to use the environment.

Recommendations

• Do not assume that the students have developed: – group working skills, – critical evaluation and/or – confidence in communicating through the text

medium

• Propose introductory exercises for students to undertake using the technology – e.g. socialization to build trust

• Clearly identify extrinsic and intrinsic rewards (e.g. interim and final deliverables)

Recommendations• Encourage students within the F2F contact

sessions to organise themselves and use the conferencing environment effectively.

• Facilitate consideration of group roles in strategy development and implementation.

• Encourage development of critical evaluation and responsibility for learning through adopting a non-moderating role within the conferencing environment.

• Monitor the environment on a regular basis to pick up any issues that can then be addressed in the F2F contact sessions.

• Evaluate what is happening/what has happened.

Current and Future research agenda

• To evaluate implementation of the framework– Across the CertEd/PGCE Post Compulsory

Education network –• developing a community of learners amongst the HEI

and Associate College network of tutors and students

– Within a new module developed in the Faculty of Computing Sciences & Engineering at Leicester

– Within the 14-19 sector

Comments & Questions?