EVALUATING THE USE OF ONLINE SYNCHRONOUS … · 2013. 11. 29. · This research study ......

EVALUATING THE USE OF ONLINE

SYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION TO

ENHANCE LEARNING IN STATISTICS

Christine McDonald

BSc DipEd MLitt

A thesis submitted to fulfil the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

in the

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane

2013

Page i

Abstract

According to social constructivists, learners are active participants in constructing

new knowledge in a social process where they interact with others. In these social

settings teachers or more knowledgeable peers provide support. This research study

investigated the contribution that an online synchronous tutorial makes to support

teaching and learning of undergraduate introductory statistics offered by an

Australian regional university at a distance.

The introductory statistics course which served as a research setting in this study was

a requirement of a variety of programs at the University, including psychology,

business and science. Often students in these programs perceive this course to be

difficult and irrelevant to their programs of study. Negative attitudes and associated

anxiety mean that students often struggle with the content. While asynchronous

discussion forums have been shown to provide a level of interaction and support, it

was anticipated that online synchronous tutorials would offer immediate feedback to

move students forward through ―stuck places.‖ At the beginning of the semester the

researcher offered distance students in this course the opportunity to participate in a

weekly online synchronous tutorial which was an addition to the usual support

offered by the teaching team. This tutorial was restricted to 12 volunteers to allow

sufficient interaction to occur for each of the participants.

The researcher, as participant-observer, conducted the weekly tutorials using the

University‘s interactive online learning platform, Wimba Classroom, whereby

participants interacted using audio, text chat and a virtual whiteboard. Prior to the

start of semester, participants were surveyed about their previous mathematical

experiences, their perceptions of the introductory statistics course and why they

wanted to participate in the online tutorial. During the semester, they were regularly

asked pertinent research questions related to their personal outcomes from the

tutorial sessions. These sessions were recorded using screen capture software and the

participants were interviewed about their experiences at the end of the semester.

Page ii

Analysis of these data indicated that the perceived value of online synchronous

tutorial lies in the interaction with fellow students and a content expert and with the

immediacy of feedback given. The collaborative learning environment offered the

support required to maintain motivation, enhance confidence and develop problem-

solving skills in these distance students of introductory statistics. Based on these

findings a model of online synchronous learning is proposed.

Keywords

Community of Inquiry, Content Analysis, Distance Education, Online Learning,

Statistics Education, Synchronous Chat

Page iii

Table of Contents

Abstract i

Keywords ii

Table of Contents iii

Declaration of Authorship vii

Acknowledgements viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 2

1.2 Aims of the study 5

1.3 Research design 5

1.4 Significance of the study 6

1.5 Limitations of the study 7

1.6 Overview of the study 7

1.7 Role of the researcher 9

1.8 Overview of the thesis 9

1.9 Summary 10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 11

2.1 Theories of learning 11

2.1.1 Constructivism 11

2.1.2 Adult learning theories 14

2.2 Distance education and online learning 16

2.2.1 Theories of distance education 17

2.2.2 Technological affordances in distance education 18

2.2.3 Online learning in statistics 20

2.3 Computer-mediated communication 21

2.3.1 Online asynchronous communication 22

2.3.2 Online synchronous communication 23

2.4 Interactions in online learning 24

2.4.1 Social presence 28

2.4.2 Cognitive presence 28

2.4.3 Teaching presence 30

2.4.4 Applying the CoI framework in broader contexts 31

2.5 Summary of the literature review 32

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 33

3.1 Research design 34

3.1.1 Research setting 35

3.1.2 Participants 37

3.1.3 Sequence of the study 38

3.2 Research method 40

3.2.1 Data collection 40

3.2.1.1 Initial survey 41

3.2.1.2 Recordings of online tutorial sessions 41

3.2.1.3 Weekly research questions 42

3.2.1.4 Final interviews 43

Page iv

3.2.2 Data analysis 45

3.2.2.1 Analysis of initial survey, weekly questions and

final interviews

45

3.2.2.2 Analysis of interaction in the online synchronous

tutorials

46

3.2.2.3 Community of Inquiry framework coding and

analysis

46

3.2.2.4 Analysis using narrative description 48

3.2.3 Validity of the study 48

3.3 Summary of the research methodology 49

CHAPTER 4: SURVEY AND INTERVIEW FINDINGS 50

4.1 Initial Survey 50

4.1.1 Preconception of studying the introductory statistics course 51

4.1.2 Effect of prior experience of mathematics on learning of

statistics

52

4.1.3 Previous experience of using discussion forums 53

4.1.4 Previous experience of online synchronous communication 54

4.1.5 Decision to participate in the online tutorial 55

4.2 Final Interviews 56

4.2.1 Participant demographics and reasons for participating 56

4.2.2 Interaction with other participants and the tutor 57

4.2.3 Perceived support of learning 58

4.2.4 Using the Wimba Classroom 59

4.2.5 Other interaction opportunities 61

4.2.6 Final comments 61

4.3 Summary of the survey and interview findings 62

CHAPTER 5: ONLINE SYNCHRONOUS TUTORIALS 63

5.1 Tutorial 1 66

5.1.1 Who attended Tutorial 1 66

5.1.2 Format and content of Tutorial 1 66

5.1.3 Interactions in Tutorial 1 69

5.1.4 Use of Tutorial 1 archive 72

5.2 Tutorial 2 72





5.3 Tutorial 3 76





5.4 Tutorial 4 81





5.5 Tutorial 5 86


Page v




5.6 Tutorial 6 92





5.7 Tutorial 7 98





5.8 Tutorial 8 103





5.9 Revision tutorial 109

5.9.1 Who attended the revision tutorial 109

5.9.2 Format and content of the revision tutorial 110

5.9.3 Interactions in the revision tutorial 113

5.9.4 Use of the revision tutorial archive 117

5.10 Content analysis using the Community of Inquiry framework 117

5.10.1 Tutorial 3 118

5.10.2 Tutorial 6 122

5.10.3 Tutorial 8 126

5.10.4 Summary of CoI analysis 130

5.11 Summary 131

CHAPTER 6: NARRATIVES 132

6.1 Sophie 133

6.2 Harry 137

6.3 Daniel 140

6.4 Jess 144

6.5 Summary of the narratives 149

CHAPTER 7 : DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 150

7.1 The online synchronous environment 151

7.2 Describing interaction in the online tutorial 155

7.2.1 People interacting 155

7.2.2 Interaction with content 158

7.2.3 Technology affords interaction 159

7.3 Nature of the dialogue in the online tutorial 160

7.4 Perception of the value of the online tutorial 161

7.5 Teaching and learning statistical concepts online 162

7.5.1 A model of online synchronous learning 164

7.6 Future Directions 167

7.7 Postscript 167

Page vi

REFERENCES 169

APPENDICES 179

A Initial survey questions 180

B Weekly research questions 181

C Final interview key questions 183

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Online interactions 25

2.2 Model of online learning showing types of interaction 26

2.3 Community of inquiry (CoI) framework 27

2.4 Practical inquiry model 29

3.1 Data collection process 39

5.1 Participants indicating answers on the virtual whiteboard 67

5.2 Writing on virtual whiteboard using tablet technology 68

5.3 Development of table of graphical and statistical summaries 69

5.4 Using diagrams to explain concepts 74

5.5 Interpreting SPSS output 79

5.6 Normal approximation to the binomial distribution 84

5.7 Guiding through the steps of the calculation 88

5.8 Working through a sign test informally 94

5.9 Formulae and calculations 102

5.10 Looking for keywords 106

5.11 Eliminating distractors 115

5.12 Participants contribute to writing formulae 116

5.13 Timeline of presences in Tutorial 3 120



7.1 Model of online synchronous learning 165

LIST OF TABLES

5.1 Student participation 65

5.2 Tutorial 3: Number of messages by participant and presence 119

5.3 Tutorial 3: Frequency (percent) of technology use by each participant 121

5.4 Relationship between presence and technology used during Tutorial 3 122







6.1 Details of narrative participants 132

Page vii

Statement of original authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, this document contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date:

Page viii

Acknowledgements

As with all works of this nature there are a number of people to thank for their

invaluable assistance. First and foremost I would like to thank my principal

supervisor, Associate Professor Margaret Lloyd. Marg, you are absolutely

amazeballs! I truly appreciate your wise counsel and support through the rough

patches. And there were a few. Your constructive and instructive criticisms

throughout the whole process were irreplaceable. You knew just when to leave me be

and when to give me a prod. Your patience was ever-enduring.

I would also like to thank my associate supervisor, Dr Shaun Nykvist for stepping

into the role so late in proceedings. The teaching team in the Doctor of Education

programme in the Centre for Learning Innovation at QUT provided a strong

launching pad for my entry into the world of doctoral study. Thank you.

How do you thank those special people who were prepared to go under the

microscope of a case study? Words don‘t seem enough. To Participants S1 – S9 (you

know who you are), thank you for your generosity in participating in my study and

for your invaluable feedback on the process.

I wish to thank my colleagues at USQ who have been so generous with their support

of my endeavours, especially Rachel (and Ruby), Linda, Carola and Petrea. A very

special mention has to go to Associate Professor Brigit Loch, now of Swinburne

University, who started me on this journey so many years ago. Birgit, your

enthusiasm and persistence are monumental!

To my Mum and Dad, Thelma and Fred Argus, thank you for your support and

encouragement over many years. Dad, wish you were here. I know you would have

been so proud.

To my family and my inspiration, Nicole, Susan, Katharine and Cameron, thank you

for putting up with a Mum who is a perennial student.

Finally to my long suffering, patient husband, Peter, no longer will you hear ―I just

need to finish this bit and then we can …‖

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Studying at a distance can give a student the freedom to study anywhere at any time,

it can, however, be a lonely and isolating experience. While adults are expected to be

independent learners, studying unfamiliar content - that is also perceived to be

difficult - can be quite daunting. This is exacerbated when they are required to study

particular content rather than choosing to do so. This research study investigated the

nature and impact of online synchronous communication in the teaching and learning

of one such course, namely, an undergraduate introductory statistics course,

comprising a one semester unit of study at an Australian regional university.

Contemporary distance courses are no longer fully reliant on printed study

packages. They generally have online components which range from printed study

materials available in an electronic form to be downloaded from a course website to

fully functional learning management systems that include multimedia materials and

provide opportunities for students to interact with their teachers and other students.

Some of these online materials and interaction opportunities provide additional

support while others are tied to assessment requiring students to participate in

mandatory asynchronous discussion forums.

Formalised online interaction with teachers and other students can negate the

freedom afforded by the distance study mode. It can, however, also reduce the

isolation felt by some students and support them when they are in most need. When

this interaction is not tied to assessment, students are free to choose to participate if

and when the need arises. When the course content is perceived to be difficult, as in

the instance described in this thesis, the immediacy of online synchronous interaction

can offer opportunities for students to collaborate in ―meaning making‖ and in

moving forward from ―stuck places‖ (Meyer & Land, 2005).

The undergraduate introductory statistics course investigated in this study is a

compulsory course in programs other than those in the statistics discipline area, for

example, psychology, business and science. Students in these programs often

consider statistics to be irrelevant to their programs of study. Past experience has

shown that studying statistics online tends to create a considerable degree of angst.

2

This negative attitude, coupled with anxiety about the perceived difficulty of this

course, means that a number of students struggle with it. While students who study

on campus have regular face-to-face assistance from teaching staff, those studying by

distance frequently attempt to work on their own. By offering these students the

opportunity to participate in an online synchronous tutorial, the researcher wanted to

provide greater support for their learning. In addition, conducting these tutorials

would allow the researcher to gain greater insights into the affordances provided by

this online medium in assisting distance students to successfully engage in and

complete a course of study in a quantitative discipline.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the study. First, the background to

the study is described by setting the scene and demonstrating the need for research in

the area of online synchronous support for learning quantitative content (Section

1.1). This is followed by the aims of the study including the research question

(Section 1.2) and research design (Section 1.3). Next, the significance of the study

and its contribution to the body of knowledge in this area are offered (Section 1.4),

while its limitations are outlined in Section 1.5. An overview of the study is

presented in Section 1.6 and the role of the researcher in Section 1.7. Lastly, an

overview of this document is provided in Section 1.8. The chapter concludes with a

short summary (Section 1.9).

1.1 Background

Teaching undergraduate introductory statistics to distance students at a regional

university in Australia since the early 1990s, the researcher has seen many changes

in the way that distance education has been delivered. The motivation for this

research developed in part from an enduring frustration with the level of support, or

lack thereof, given to distance students studying quantitative courses in a tertiary

education setting. Additional motivation came from a wish to formally investigate

the researcher‘s previous experiments in using online synchronous communication

tools in teaching to support the learning of students in statistical methods (Loch &

McDonald, 2007).

When the researcher began work at the University more than twenty years

ago, distance students were sent a study package consisting of:

3

(i) an introductory book outlining administrative procedures within a course and

detailing the assessment requirements; and,

(ii) a printed study book that referred to sections in a prescribed textbook and

sometimes elaborated on the content of the textbook.

Interaction with these students consisted of: written feedback in marked assignments

which were returned through the post; exchange of correspondence responding to

questions posed about the content; and, the occasional telephone call. Students were

left largely to their own devices to work through the materials. In this, distance

learning was reliant on the postal service for the distribution of printed material,

provision of assessments that required completed assignments to be posted to the

tutor and finally feedback to be posted back to the student. The time lapse between

these activities and the perceived difficulty of studying quantitative content meant

that students received limited and sporadic support to engage fully with and succeed

in acquiring the necessary skills to master the content.

With the advent and widespread use of email in tertiary institutions, students

gained an avenue for receiving more timely feedback from tutors. However, this was

still problematic because of the difficulties of including mathematical symbols and

diagrams in electronic form. With the introduction of teleconferencing, telephone

tutorials were conducted by teaching staff at the University. Through this medium,

students were able to converse with one another and the tutor via a telephone

―hookup‖ between several study centres across Queensland. However, interstate and

overseas students were excluded as costs were considered prohibitive. Despite the

capacity to do so, there was very little student-student interaction and ―classes‖ were

typically instructor-led. The tutor often struggled while discussing the quantitative

content on the phone as much of it is visual in nature. These two digital forms of

communication had advantages over print and postal delivery, but were still

unsatisfactory in the teaching of statistical methods to distance students.

Learning management systems, such as WebCT, Moodle and Blackboard,

have led to the use of asynchronous discussion forums to enhance interaction in a

wide variety of discipline contexts. While discussion forums have been available for

a number of years now, their use in quantitative disciplines has been hampered by the

ongoing difficulties associated with writing mathematical symbols easily in a text

environment (Smith & Ferguson, 2005). This has generally been overcome by

4

attaching scanned documents of handwritten mathematics to a forum posting,

however this is cumbersome and time consuming. Discussion forums are largely

asynchronous in nature and, while allowing students flexibility to study where and

when they want, they lack the immediacy of synchronous communication, such as

teleconferencing, where feedback can be given and acted upon in ―real time‖

(Brannon & Essex, 2001).

The development of tablet technology, whereby it is possible to write rather

than type electronically in documents, has revealed a myriad of possibilities in

providing support for learning and teaching in the quantitative disciplines (Galligan,

Hobohm & Loch, 2012). Mathematical symbols can be directly written into emails

and electronic handwriting can be used in synchronous chat and videoconferencing

software. This enhances the opportunities for showing distance students how

mathematical reasoning is developed step-by-step in the moment and describing

statistical concepts using diagrams and graphs. As a result, it is now feasible to

scaffold the development of statistical concepts in real time in an online synchronous

environment.

In recent years, the researcher has been complementing the learning of

introductory statistics by distance students with online tutorials, that is, instructor-led

synchronous text chats. These tutorials were initially offered in an attempt to

overcome the barriers of unfamiliar language (terminology) and perceptions of

difficulty of this content. They used technologies that support the ability to

electronically ―write‖ on the computer screen rather than just type, thus allowing

greater control over the use of mathematical symbols and diagrams. Their perceived

effectiveness is one of the main motivators for the researcher to formalise her

understandings of the role of synchronous technology in supporting student learning

in this field.

Offering greater support to distance students in quantitative disciplines

involves making available a variety of opportunities for students to engage with the

content, the tutor and one another. However, it is not sufficient to just provide

opportunities. As proposed through this study, a greater understanding of how these

opportunities operate and contribute to student learning of statistical concepts

through the use of these technologies is necessary to develop them to full capacity.

Through the potential of technology, that is, computer-mediated communication,

5

support for learning in quantitative disciplines using scaffolding within a

constructivist paradigm is now possible.

1.2 Aims of the study

The purpose of this study is to describe the affordances of an online synchronous

learning environment and to investigate the impact it may have on the teaching and

learning of quantitative content, in particular, in undergraduate introductory statistics

by distance learners. The research question posed for this study is

How does an online synchronous environment contribute to the teaching and

learning of statistical concepts by distance learners?

The aims of this study of an online synchronous learning environment are:

1. To describe the student-teacher, student-student and student-content

interaction in the teaching and learning of statistical concepts in this

environment;

2. To investigate the nature of the dialogue in this environment for this

discipline context;

3. To examine the student perceptions of the value of this environment to

learning of statistical concepts; and,

4. To formulate theoretical constructs pertaining to the teaching and learning of

statistical concepts in this environment.

1.3 Research design

Using a case study methodology, this research study explored the phenomenon of

supporting distance students learning undergraduate introductory statistics in the

context of an online synchronous environment (Baxter & Jack, 2008; see Section 3.1

for more details). Consistent with naturalistic inquiry, the researcher did not impose a

priori expectations on the outcome of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Multiple methods of data collection and analysis were employed in order to

identify how the online synchronous tutorials supported learning in this quantitative

discipline context (Section 3.2). The data sources included: an initial survey, weekly

research questions, final interviews and online tutorial recordings including text chat

(Section 3.2.1).

6

Using the lens of the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson

& Archer, 2000; see Sections 2.4, 3.2.2.3 and 5.10), this study examined the

interactions taking place in online synchronous tutorials in the pursuit of knowledge

construction from a socio-cultural perspective. This model - consisting of the

elements of course design, group dynamics and facilitation style - provided a more

in-depth understanding of the learning process in the online synchronous

environment.

Analysis of the tutorial recordings provided insights into the interactions

taking place (see Chapter 5). In addition, thematic coding of initial survey responses,

weekly feedback from the participants, and final interviews was used to gain a

deeper understanding of the role that this online environment can play in supporting

distance students in their learning of introductory statistics (Section 3.2.2).

1.4 Significance of the study

Where this research study differs from other computer-mediated communications

studies in tertiary education settings is in: (i) the technology used, and (ii) the context

to which it is applied. Online synchronous tutorials and discussions, where

communication is primarily in text, have been used effectively in other disciplines

such as Teacher Education (Burnett, 2003). However, tutors and students have

struggled to effectively communicate mathematically in the online environment

(Smith & Ferguson, 2005). Although it is possible to type correct mathematical

symbols in Microsoft Word documents using Equation Editor, most students resort to

handwriting on paper and faxing through questions, or scanning a handwritten

document and emailing it to the tutor as an attachment unless it is required for a

formal assessment. In using a primarily text-based medium, a type of shorthand

notation has to be used in order to communicate mathematically. While this works to

some degree, it is far from ideal and can in fact be misleading. Even though

synchronous tools, particularly online text chat, have been available for some time,

inclusion of an electronic writing facility within the online chat environment,

pertinent to quantitative disciplines, is fairly recent (Loch & McDonald, 2007).

Further to this, with the advent of electronic handwriting in Chat software

such as Windows Live Messenger and interactive online learning platforms, such as

Elluminate or Wimba, it is now possible to engage students more interactively in

7

quantitatively-based content in an online synchronous environment. From the

researcher‘s perspective and through the experience documented in this section, there

is a clear role for this type of technology in the teaching of introductory statistics.

The study described in this thesis will contribute to the investigation into its most

appropriate use and the value it holds for students.

1.5 Limitations of the study

While there is potential for this study to inform practice, it needs to be acknowledged

that it is limited by the need to use volunteers and the size of the tutorial group

enlisted. Limitations of the study relate to its small scale thus reducing the

generalisability of its findings. In light of these issues, this study was restricted to

focussing on student perceptions of and contributions to the interaction taking place

in the online tutorials rather than attempting to evaluate learning and teaching

outcomes based on formal assessment of content knowledge. Other variables specific

to this study include the capacity and technical competence of the participants. That

participation in the online tutorials was voluntary may also bring a ―halo effect‖ to

the findings of the study. The experience of the researcher (as participant-observer)

may also not be replicable in other studies.

1.6 Overview of the study

The study consisted of four stages: preparation, data collection, data analysis and

presentation of results. Even though these four stages required several years to

complete, data collection was conducted over a one semester offering of the

introductory statistics course. Despite the fact that these four stages are seemingly

distinct time periods in the progress of the study, it should be noted that there was

some overlap in when they occurred.

The preparation stage of the study included negotiation of appropriate work

conditions for the researcher to conduct the study during the teaching semester of the

data collection stage, obtaining ethics clearance, introduction of the researcher to

potential participants by the Course Leader, and enlistment of participants to the

study including formal consent to participate (Section 3.1). To prepare participants

for operating effectively within the synchronous online environment an initial

tutorial was scheduled to introduce the participants to the functionality of the

interactive online learning platform used in this study, Wimba Classroom.

8

For the researcher, data collection involved administering the initial survey,

teaching in and recording the online synchronous tutorials across a period of nine

weeks of the semester, posing the weekly research questions and conducting the final

interviews with individual participants (Section 3.2.1). The initial survey elicited

attitudes to the prospect of studying introductory statistics and expectations of the

contribution that the online synchronous tutorial was expected to make to their

studies. The weekly research questions included student perceptions of what was

personally achieved by participating in the previous week‘s tutorial and gauged how

they were feeling about the course as the semester progressed. The final interview

investigated participants‘ reasons for participating in the online synchronous tutorials

and their views on the contribution that the tutorials made to their learning of

introductory statistics.

In the data analysis stage of the study, thematic coding of the initial survey

and the final interviews informed interpretation of student perceptions of the value of

the online synchronous tutorials (Section 3.2.2). Applying ―thick description‖ to

these tutorials using a detailed account of the activity taking place, the context in

which it occurred and incorporating the perceptions of the ―actors‖ informed

understanding of the contribution of these tutorials to the teaching and learning of

introductory statistics by distance students (Stake, 1995). This description included

details of student-student, student-teacher and student-content interactions in the

building of a community of inquiry to foster collaborative learning consistent with

that proposed by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000). Vignettes of several

participants‘ individual experiences of the tutorials added further to understanding of

the case.

As the final stage of the study, results were collated into three findings

chapters (Chapters 4, 5 and 6). These chapters addressed the first three aims of the

study related to the types of interaction, the nature of the dialogue and student

perceptions of the value of the online synchronous tutorial to learning of statistical

concepts. The final aim of the study was addressed in the discussion chapter where a

model of online synchronous learning was proposed (Chapter 7).

9

1.7 Role of the researcher

As noted, the researcher has taught in the course investigated by this study for more

than two decades and is therefore thoroughly experienced in both face-to-face and

traditional asynchronous distance teaching of the course content. However, during

the conduct of this study, she was not a member of the official teaching team nor did

she take a role in the marking of student work, so that participants could be assured

that their involvement in the study did in no way negatively influence their end of

semester results for the course.

The researcher, as participant-observer, facilitated voluntary weekly online

synchronous tutorials, administered the initial survey, the weekly research questions

and final interviews. As participant-observer, the researcher had the advantageous

position of being ―inside‖ the case to maximise what could be learned, but had to be

careful not to unduly influence the outcome of the study. Students were fully aware

of her role as researcher, since this information was made known in the initial call for

volunteers to participate.

1.8 Overview of the thesis

This chapter (Chapter 1) has introduced the study. The following chapter, Chapter 2,

will present a review of literature relevant to the study. Since the focus of this study

is on interaction in the learning of introductory statistics in a higher education setting

using an online synchronous environment, literature pertaining to learning theory, in

particular constructivism and adult learning (Section 2.1), distance education

(Section 2.2), computer-mediated communication (Section 2.3) and interaction in

online learning (Section 2.4) form the main components of this review.

The methodology and research design for the study are elaborated in Chapter

3. As noted in Section 1.3, a case study approach was employed to inform the

strategies of inquiry including the types of data collected (Section 3.2.1), the analysis

used (Section 3.2.2) and the interpretation of the data. The research design including

the research setting (Section 3.1.1), enlistment of participants (Section 3.1.2), and

sequence of the study (Section 3.1.3) are described in detail. The validity of the study

is addressed in Section 3.2.3.

The findings of the study are presented in three chapters. Chapter 4 presents

outcomes from the initial survey and final interviews. The initial survey included

10

preconceptions of studying the introductory statistics course (Section 4.1.1),

students‘ prior experience with mathematics (Section 4.1.2), their involvement in

online discussion forums (Section 4.1.3), their prior experience of online

conferencing in other courses (Section 4.1.4), and their reasons for participating in

the online tutorial in introductory statistics (Section 4.1.5). The final interviews

included demographics of the participants and why they chose to participate in the

online tutorial (Section 4.2.1), participant views on interaction with other participants

and the tutor/teacher (Section 4.2.2), their perceptions of how the online tutorial

supported their learning (Section 4.2.3), using the interactive online learning

platform, Wimba Classroom (Section 4.2.4) and interaction outside this Classroom

(Section 4.2.5).

Following this, Chapter 5 gives detailed description of each online

synchronous tutorial in terms of who attended, format and content, interactions

taking place and use made of the archives (Sections 5.1 – 5.9), with further insights

using the lens of the Community of Inquiry framework (Section 5.10).

Individual student stories in relation to their contributions to and experience

of the online synchronous tutorials are developed in Chapter 6. The thesis concludes

with a discussion of the outcomes of the study, conclusions derived from the study, a

proposed model of online synchronous learning and recommendations for further

research (Chapter 7).

1.9 Summary

This study sets out to explore and describe the use of the online synchronous learning

environment and the contribution that it may make to the teaching and learning of

quantitative content by distance learners, in particular undergraduate introductory

statistics. It is intended that the outcomes of this study will inform practice in the

provision of effective support to distance students of quantitative content, in

particular undergraduate introductory statistics, with the view to improve the student

experience.

This chapter has served to briefly introduce the motivation, setting and

context of this research study. The following chapter provides a review of the

research literature that has informed the research design and analysis of the study

described in this thesis.

11

Chapter 2: Literature review

The literature review presented in this chapter highlights the key elements that

inform the teaching and learning context of this study. It begins with a broad

overview of the established theories of learning (Section 2.1) generally associated

with online learning in the tertiary sector, that is constructivism (Section 2.1.1) and

adult learning (Section 2.1.2). The chapter then moves to a detailed examination of

distance education, with particular reference to online statistics education (Section

2.2), and computer-mediated communication (Section 2.3). The final section of the

chapter focuses on interaction in online learning (Section 2.4). A short summary

concludes the chapter (Section 2.5).

2.1 Theories of learning

There is a range of contrasting learning theories and philosophical approaches to

education (Bigge & Shermis, 1999). Which learning theory to enlist ultimately

depends on the context in which the learning is taking place – the teacher, the

learners and the content to be introduced. In the context of this study, that is, of adult

learners engaged in tertiary distance studies, the most relevant theories are

constructivism (Section 2.1.1) and adult learning or andragogy (Section 2.1.2).

Constructivism has been selected because of (i) the researcher‘s emphasis in her own

teaching on the active engagement of learners in creating new knowledge; and, (ii)

the affordance for the development of community made possible by the use of online

technologies (to be explored later in this chapter). The attention to adult learning is

justified by the age of students in the cohort under investigation in this study, that is,

students enrolled in university courses.

2.1.1 Constructivism

According to constructivists, learners are active participants in constructing new

knowledge rather than passive acquirers of knowledge through memorising or having

it simply presented to them (Larochelle, Bednarz & Garrison, 1998). Learners

construct their knowledge by reflecting on and making sense of their own

experience, and this requires online instructors to be aware of the strengths of the

online synchronous medium by being proactive in enabling rather than directing

12

learning (Burnett, 2003). Further to this, social constructivists believe that learning

is a social process, where learners interact with others through testing and

challenging their understandings (Bates & Poole, 2003).

One approach to justify the use of a primarily constructivist approach to

learning in the context of this study is to contrast the two major families of learning

theories (Bigge & Shermis, 1999), namely: (i) S-R (Stimulus-Response) conditioning

theories of the behaviourist family, including theorists such as Watson, Thorndike

and Skinner; and, (ii) interactionist theories of the cognitive family into which

constructivist learning theory falls and includes theorists such as Piaget, Dewey and

Vygotsky.

S-R (Stimulus-Response) conditioning theories view learning as a change in

observable behaviour caused by environmental influences, that is, a change in the

strength of S-R connections (Bigge & Shermis, 1999). The association of a stimulus

with a response depends on an appropriate method of reinforcement through reward

or punishment. Behaviourists take a more scientific stance maintaining a high degree

of objectivity and rejecting reference to unobservable states such as feelings,

attitudes and consciousness (Bates & Poole, 2003). For example, Watson, using a

strongly scientific approach, suggested that learning was a process of building

conditioned reflexes through the substitution of one stimulus for another (Bigge &

Shermis, 1999). Similarly, Thorndike‘s ―connectionism‖ linked mental functions to

biological connections (Thorndike, 1931/1968), wherein S-R connections were made

through random trial-and-error and more pleasurable responses would become fixed

(Bigge & Shermis, 1999). Learning was believed to take place through repetition and

reward to correct responses and the gradual elimination of inappropriate responses

(Knowles, Holton III & Swanson, 2005; Smith, 2001). Lastly and perhaps best

known in the behaviourist family is Skinner‘s theory of operant conditioning. This

theory describes learning as a process in which a response is made more frequent by

arranging reinforcing consequences (Skinner, 1976).

In diametric contrast to behaviourism, cognitive interactionist theories point

to learning as a process of gaining or changing insights, outlooks, expectations, or

thought patterns (Bigge & Shermis, 1999), that is, gaining understandings. Piaget‘s

studies of the nature of children of different ages related their innate developmental

stages to their acquisition of knowledge (genetic epistemology). Children start at the

13

sensorimotor stage where they are only directly interacting with their environment

and progress through several stages where finally in the formal operations stage they

are able to apply thought and reason (Piaget, 1969/1971). Each stage builds on the

previous stage, reconstructing cognition at the more advanced level. This involves

the key processes of assimilation, where new knowledge meshes with existing

insights, and accommodation, where these internal insights are reconstructed to

reflect or accommodate the change (Bigge & Shermis, 1999). Dewey similarly

proposed the idea of growth through learning experiences suggesting that learners,

facilitated by a teacher, have an active role in the learning process by incorporating

the exchange of ideas in a social context (Dewey, 1940/1969). Such processes were

seen to lead to a growing ability to organise, analyse and synthesize (Cross-Durant,

2001; Knowles et al., 2005).

However, the learning theory of most interest to this study is that of

Vygotsky. As a social constructivist, Vygotsky advocated that social interaction was

fundamental to the development of cognition. He proposed that a child learns

through shared problem-solving experiences. Vygotsky‘s Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD) can be defined as the distance between a child‘s actual level of

development and some higher level of potential development which can be attained

under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Hung & Chen,

2001; Maurino, 2007). In other words, Vygotsky‘s ZPD links ―what is‖ to ―what can

be‖ – challenging the learner (with help) to progress beyond where the learner feels

comfortable, thus allowing learning and cognitive development to take place. The

size of the zone set by the teacher is vital to the progress of the learner across the

ZPD (Maurino, 2007). The social environment that is created provides the necessary

scaffolding for the learner to progress. In other words, scaffolding is created by the

adult (teacher) to help the learner to move across the ZPD. Bigge and Shermis (1999)

suggested that ―a first component of scaffolding is the engagement of children in

interesting, culturally meaningful collaborative problem-solving activities‖ (p. 130).

There is a need to create a common ground for communication which then leads to

mutual support. While Vygotsky was primarily referring to the learning of children,

this approach can be equally applied to novice adult learners, particularly those who,

as in this study, are anxious about the content with which they are required to

engage. This is discussed in greater detail in the following subsection.

14

2.1.2 Adult learning theories

While the theories introduced in the previous subsection (Section 2.1.1) were

developed to describe the learning of children, they are equally applicable to adult

learning particularly where the tutor and more capable peers mentor the learning of

novice adult learners. It remains important, however, to consider understandings,

however disputed, in and around how adult learning differs from that of children.

Foremost in theories of adult learning is andragogy. Although its origins are

ascribed to the 19th Century, Knowles (1950) forwarded the concept of andragogy to

describe the learning of adults and to compare it to ―pedagogy‖ as the learning of

children. It is based on the understanding that:

Andragogy assumes that the point at which an individual achieves a self-

concept of essential self-direction is the point at which he [/she]

psychologically becomes adult. A very critical thing happens when this

occurs: the individual develops a deep psychological need to be perceived

by others as being self-directing. Thus, when he [/she] finds him[/her]self in

a situation in which he [/she] is not allowed to be self-directing, he [/she]

experiences a tension between that situation and his[/her] self-concept. His

[/her] reaction is bound to be tainted with resentment and resistance.

(Knowles, 1978, p. 56)

Elsewhere, Knowles (1990) described the distinguishing characteristics of adult

learners. These are:

1. The need to know — adult learners need to know why they need to learn

something before undertaking to learn it.

2. Learner self-concept — adults need to be responsible for their own decisions

and to be treated as capable of self-direction.

3. Role of learners' experience — adult learners have a variety of experiences of

life which represent the richest resource for learning. These experiences are

however imbued with bias and presupposition.

4. Readiness to learn — adults are ready to learn those things they need to know

in order to cope effectively with life situations.

15

5. Orientation to learning — adults are motivated to learn to the extent that they

perceive that it will help them perform tasks they confront in their life

situations.

While supported through anecdotal experience, the disputes in and around

andragogy and Knowles‘ (1950, 1978, 1990) assumptions lie in the defining of

adulthood as a social construction rather than through physical or cognitive

development (Pogson & Tennant, 1995). The extent to which these assumptions are

characteristic of adult learners only is still debated (Merriam, 2001). Adult

experience is a far less predictable indicator of learning than a child‘s chronological

age or stage of development. Notably, an adult‘s ―more and deeper life experiences

may or may not function positively in a learning situation‖ (Merriam, 2001, p. 5).

However, there has been a move from a dichotomous view of andragogy and

pedagogy to more of a continuum from teacher-directed to student-directed learning

(Merriam, 2004).

The theory of adult learning has been expanded to include the concepts of

transformative learning and self-directed learning. Mezirow‘s theory of

transformative learning is considered to be a theory of adult learning where prior

interpretation is transformed into a new interpretation via the learning process

(Mezirow, 2003; Taylor, 2008). Independent thinking can be considered as the goal

of transformative learning with critical reflection by the learner being central to the

process (Merriam, 2004). However, with the development of what constitutes

transformative learning, there is a broadening emphasis to include context and not

just individuation. A more holistic approach indicates an appreciation of the role of

relationship with others in the process of transformative learning (Taylor, 2008).

Similarly, a self-directed learning experience can be described by a number of

models (Merriam, 2001). Self-directed learning can be defined by the learner‘s

capacity to be self-directed, the transformational nature of the learning and the

promotion of socio-political action. In formal educational contexts it is often aligned

with a shift from a teacher-centred to a learner-centred approach (Garrison, 2003). In

the distance education context, the theory of self-directed learning was originally

consistent with the concept of independent study and autonomy as defined by Moore

(2007) in his theory of transactional distance (as discussed further in Section 2.2.1).

From a collaborative constructivist perspective, Garrison (2003) identified three core

16

components of self-directed learning as self-management, self-monitoring and

motivation. However, he qualified this by pointing out that ―without appropriate

support and guidance, learners may not persist or achieve the desired educational

outcomes‖ (p. 165). With this in mind and the advancement of computer-mediated

communication, Garrison noted that the concept of self-directed learning needs to

inform the teaching and learning transaction within a critical community of inquiry

(see Section 2.4 for more details).

While there is no one all-encompassing model of adult learning, each of these

theories have contributed to an understanding of the characteristics which define

adult learning and, as such, can be used to inform decisions made about how best to

support adult learners in formal educational environments. In particular, aspects of

these theories will contribute to the discussion of issues related to the teaching and

learning in the distance education setting of this study.

2.2 Distance education and online learning

Distance education can be defined as any form of structured learning in which the

student and the teacher are in separate physical locations (Bates & Poole, 2003). In

some cases, the teaching and learning can also be taking place at separate times.

Gunawardena and McIssac (2004) pointed out that ―such programs are particularly

beneficial for the many people who are not financially, physically or geographically

able to obtain traditional education‖ (p. 356). Bates (2005) similarly suggested that

distance education is ideal for learners who travel frequently or who have erratic

schedules.

Distance education in the form of correspondence study was developed in the

1800s as an alternative to traditional education where teacher and students would

meet at the one location. Although viewed as a poor substitute, it provided

educational opportunities for those who were not counted among the elite of that era.

Such education, in the form of guided independent study supported by print-based

materials with minimal student-teacher interaction, suffered from low completion

rates. In more recent times, distance education is seen to be filling the needs of

continuing education and lifelong learning by providing more flexible learning

environments through the affordances of digital technologies (Gunawardena &

McIssac, 2004).

17

2.2.1 Theories of distance education

Theories of distance education are strongly allied to the differing models that it has

adopted over time. These models are, in turn, a product of both the dominant

pedagogies and the technologies of their era. Identified theories of distance education

include: (i) an industrialised perspective (Peters, 2007); (ii) teaching-learning

conversations (Holmberg, 2007); and (iii) transactional distance (Moore, 2007).

Industrialised perspective: The industrialisation of education (Peters, 2007) is more

an organisational theory to inform the mass production and distribution of

instructional packages, the division of labour, and extensive use of technical media,

making it possible to instruct large numbers of students where and when they want it.

Self-direction and self-motivation were core to the success of this model of distance

education (Section 2.1.2). Garrison (2000) noted that this dominance of

organisational issues over teaching and learning highlighted the need to choose

between independence and interaction. However, he added that this has become less

of an issue with the advent of computer-mediated communication which has made

both possible.

Teaching-learning conversation: In contrast to but not opposed to the industrial

model is an empathetic approach to distance learning (Holmberg, 2007). This

approach is more strongly aligned with the teaching-learning conversation whereby

pre-produced correspondence study guides are written in a conversational style in

order to engage and motivate the learner. These teaching-learning conversations

make the information in complicated or formal academic texts more accessible. Real

interaction in the form of written feedback to assignments completes a

―conversation‖. This approach focuses on the importance of discourse as opposed to

an emphasis on independence and autonomy of the distance learner.

Transactional distance: Transactional distance theory provides a framework for

defining distance education in pedagogical terms, where teaching and learning in

separate locations can be better understood (Moore, 2007). The transaction in

distance education relates to the connection between teachers and learners in a

situation where they are in geographically different locations. However, transactional

distance is a relative measure that describes the degree of connectedness between the

teacher and learner unrelated to geographical distance.

18

This degree of connectedness is measured by the balance between three sets

of ―macro factors‖: structure, dialogue and autonomy (Moore, 2007, p. 90). The

structure relates to the nature of the teaching program being presented including

learning objectives, presentation of information, activities, exercises and tests. A

highly structured program would be one where there is little allowance for deviation

from the designated pathway through the content and educational process, thus

reducing the level of self-direction, minimising self-motivation and so not allowing

for individual differences in student needs. Dialogue refers to the interchange

between teachers and learners for the creation of knowledge. While the extent and

nature of the dialogue is influenced by a number of factors, one overarching

contributing factor is the structure that has been applied to the program of study

(Moore, 2007). Other factors include the medium of communication, the subject

matter, personalities of participants, culture and language. Learner autonomy,

consistent with the notions of andragogy and self-directed learning (Section 2.1.2)

refers to the level of self-management that a learner is expected to or permitted to

exercise in the learning context in relation to motivation, setting goals, the learning

process and the evaluation of the learning that has taken place. Moore proposed that

transactional distance is determined by the interaction of these three macro factors.

However, Gorsky and Caspi (2005) asserted that empirical studies that attempted to

support or to validate transactional distance theory only partially did so and lacked

reliability and/or construct validity. Further, they suggested that the theory could be

reduced to a single proposition – as the amount of dialogue increases, transactional

distance decreases.

These theories provide an informative starting point for the study described in

this thesis. Through its use of synchronous technologies it eschews the industrialised

approach and attempts to establish a teaching-learning conversation more akin to the

social constructivist teaching approach framed by Vygotsky (Section 2.1.1), adopted

by the researcher. In this, it will attempt to map the transactional distance between

learners and teachers. This notion of transaction is examined in greater detail through

other models of interaction (Section 2.4).

2.2.2 Technological affordances in distance education

Distance education has been driven over time by the invention of new technologies

described as successive generations - from the provision of a reliable postal service

19

(1st generation), to the use of broadcast radio and television (2nd generation), to the

development of ―open‖ universities (3rd generation), to teleconferencing (4th

generation) and the opening up of the Internet (5th generation) (Moore & Kearsley,

2005). Bates (2005), however, compacted these into three generations by combining

the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations into one that is ―industrial in nature‖ (p. 7).

Characteristics that define this generation include print and integrated multi-media

with highly centralised methods of mass production and delivery where students are

supported by a tutor rather than the producer of the materials (typical of the Open

Universities‘ model) (Peters, 2007).

A different generational perspective yet still closely aligned with the

affordances of technology is one which considers distance education pedagogy

(Anderson & Dron, 2011). It was proposed that there are three generations of

pedagogy, namely cognitive-behaviourist, social constructivist, and connectivist.

Even though the focus is on the structure of learning, it appears that the development

of these distance education pedagogies has been constrained by the technology

available at the time. Regardless of whichever generational view is held, it seems

that with the development of each new technology, new models of distance education

have followed, even though the processes of the earlier generations have not been

completely displaced by the new ones (Anderson, 2008). What is of interest to this

study is that each generation brings differing affordances for the process of learning

with newer synchronous technologies allowing heightened and more spontaneous

communication between teacher and student.

Along with these technological developments come new ways of defining

distance education, for example, distance learning, open learning, networked

learning, flexible learning, distributed learning, online learning and e-learning (Bates,

2005; Guri-Rosenblit, 2009). In spite of the term used, there is an expectation that

distance education will still be knowledge-, community-, assessment- and learner-

centred, just like all forms of quality learning (Anderson, 2008). However, some may

use the term learning-centred rather than learner-centred where the educational

processes focus on the learning and interaction taking place rather than the learner

(Anderson, 2008). This will be discussed in more detail in Section 2.4.

It is important to note, however, that distance education in contemporary

times does not necessarily incorporate online learning nor online learning imply

20

distance learning. However, there is some overlap (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009). Online

learning or e-learning includes the use of new electronic media for a variety of

learning purposes from enhancing the experiences of students in otherwise

conventional classrooms to providing greater interactional or transactional

opportunities for students studying at a distance. With the current rapid development

of computing and communications technologies, a number of delivery media are

presently available ranging from the old style printed materials through to television,

email and computer conferencing. These have the potential to provide increased

interactivity between teachers and students (Gunawardena & McIssac, 2004). Hara,

Bonk and Angeli (2000) noted that ―students have greater opportunities with

electronic collaboration tools to solicit and share knowledge while developing

common ground or intersubjectivity with their peers and teachers‖ (p. 140).

While developments in technology open up greater possibilities for teaching

and learning, these need to be balanced by the costs to the provider and the benefits

to learners (Bates, 2005). In addition, the affordances supplied by each technological

advancement should be balanced by creative pedagogy (Twomey, 2009). The

technologies themselves are merely the means to allow communication between

teachers and learners. The creative pedagogy enacted is influenced by the discipline

of study, in this instance statistics.

2.2.3 Online learning in statistics

In their review of statistical education, Tishkovskaya and Lancaster (2012)

acknowledged that ―teaching statistical courses is challenging because they serve

students with varying backgrounds and abilities, many of whom have had negative

experiences with statistics and mathematics‖ (p. 2). They further noted that even

though there is a critical need for statistically educated citizens, students at all levels

lack interest when taking introductory statistics courses. With this in mind, in recent

years there has been an explosion of technology-enhanced teaching materials to

improve understanding of key concepts in statistics (Rubin, 2007). Many of these

technological enhancements and web-based resources have taken the form of

educational java applets to visualise statistical concepts, video lectures, repositories

of ―pedagogically rich‖ data sets, simulations and interactive graphical displays

(Tishkovskaya & Lancaster, 2012). These resources have been used to supplement

teaching in face-to-face classes as well as fully online classes.

21

Teaching statistics online has taken a variety of forms. Online statistics

courses have been taught completely online or in hybrid/blended mode (mixture of

online and face-to-face), asynchronously and synchronously, to graduate and

undergraduate students, and include varying amounts of interaction amongst

participants (Mills & Raju, 2011). It was recognised that active discussions in online

statistics courses can help motivate and engage students in the learning process,

increasing feelings of connectedness (Everson & Garfield, 2008). Following their

study comparing a traditional on campus class with a class taught in hybrid mode,

Utts, Sommer, Acredolo, Maher and Matthews (2003) recommended that students

need to interact with a ―knowledgeable instructor‖ and should participate in weekly

meetings face-to-face or by online discussion forums. In online courses most

interaction has taken place asynchronously via discussion forums or synchronously

using email or what could be described as virtual office hours where students‘

questions could be answered (Suanpang, Petocz & Kalceff, 2004; Kreiner, 2006).

Even though there has been a growing body of research into online teaching

of statistics ―there is much still to learn about how to effectively implement these

courses and what practices are best‖ (Mills & Raju, 2011, p. 2). With the recognition

that interaction is an important consideration in online learning, the affordances of

the technology to support communication and interaction among students is an

essential consideration.

2.3 Computer-mediated communication

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) refers to communication between

individuals and among groups via networked computers (Naidu & Jarvela, 2006).

With the shift from a behaviourist to constructivist view of learning comes an

increased emphasis on collaborative learning strategies for the construction of

knowledge (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). This means that it becomes a critical

agent in online distance teaching and learning, particularly where a constructivist

approach is adopted (Section 2.1.1). Gaining insights from analysing the discourse

that takes place in computer-supported collaborative learning environments is

integral to understanding the learning and knowledge construction afforded by these

environments (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006).

22

CMC can take on numerous forms: email, bulletin boards, wikis, blogs,

podcasts, discussion groups, chat, and videoconferencing. These can be grouped into

two modes: asynchronous and synchronous. In the asynchronous mode (discussed in

further detail in Section 2.3.1), communicating individuals are not logged on to a

computer network or the Internet at the same time. An asynchronous message is sent

or posted to be viewed at a later time, whereas in the synchronous mode (Section

2.3.2), individuals are able to communicate in real time. Synchronous

communication allows almost instantaneous responses to messages that have been

sent or posted. Mason (2003) suggested that ―a mix of real-time and asynchronous

opportunities for interaction is increasingly also assumed in best practice guidelines

for on-line delivery‖ (p. 97). Bates (2005) added that ―distance learners not only

benefit from a combination of synchronous and asynchronous technology, but they

also prefer this approach‖ (p. 189). Interaction in online learning has been

investigated largely in asynchronous environments such as email and discussion

forums, rather than in synchronous communication situations such as text chat and

videoconferencing (Hrastinski, Keller & Carlson, 2010). This study endeavours to

fill a gap in the literature in relation to the use of online synchronous communication

to support distance learning in a quantitative discipline.

2.3.1 Online asynchronous communication

Asynchronous learning tools can foster deep learning as they provide a timeframe for

a learner to read and reflect upon contributions to a discussion made by other

participants before posting a response. Further to this, asynchronous discussion

forums provide flexibility in online learning by allowing learners time to read,

reflect, formulate and respond to postings, thus offering more time on task, and so

more opportunity for knowledge construction (Bates, 2005), or simply read and

reflect without leaving a response – ―pedagogical lurking‖ (Dennen, 2008).

Even though learners can theoretically participate in discussion forums at any

time and in any location, Burr and Spennemann (2004), using a large-scale multi-

year sample, found that ―available technology does not influence study habits, but

that work and study habits influence when the technology is being accessed‖ (p. 26).

They argued that, with knowledge of patterns of use, teachers can better target their

support of student learning. For example, the question that initiates an asynchronous

discussion influences the level of the response from learners (Meyer, 2004).

23

Further, teacher intervention in discussion forums has the power to push a

discussion forward by being selective in resolving an issue, for example, by

answering a direct question, validating a response to provide clarification or

encouragement, redirecting the discussion to keep it on task or alleviating

misconceptions, expanding to move the discussion to a new level, or withholding

advice or information to allow learner discussion to flow (Simonsen & Banfield,

2006). Care needs to be taken when using ―withholding‖ as this may be perceived as

disinterest on the part of the teacher. To overcome potential pitfalls such as lack of

immediate feedback, lack of timely contribution and lack of time for development of

thoughtful discussion, Gilbert and Dabbagh (2005) suggested a structured approach

including facilitator guidelines, posting protocols and evaluation criteria. They found

from a case study that while facilitator guidelines and evaluation criteria which gave

grade weightings to timely and consistent contributions had a positive impact on

promoting meaningful discussion, that is, reducing transactional distance (Section

2.2.1), posting protocols that restrict the length of postings, thus increasing

transactional distance, had a negative impact.

2.3.2 Online synchronous communication

While there is a growing body of literature investigating synchronous forms of online

communication (Cox, Carr & Hall, 2004; Hrastinski, 2006; Hrastinski et al., 2010;

Stein et al., 2007), these have been primarily in disciplines more closely aligned to

the social sciences such as Teacher Education (Burnett, 2003; Stein et al., 2007),

African Studies and Economics (Cox et al, 2004) and Business English (Hrastinski,

2006), rather than in the quantitative disciplines such as investigated in this study.

Online chats for teaching university students have been used in a range of learning

environments. The reasons range from giving an added dimension to the learning

experience of on-campus students (Cox et al., 2004) to providing a supportive

learning environment to fully distance students (Myers, Bishop, Rajaman & Kelly,

2004).

In online student-centred synchronous learning environments, students are

able to, and seem more willing to interact and take turns, constructing their own

knowledge, than in the traditional face-to-face classroom (Cox et al., 2004). Online

chatting can provide equal opportunities - breaking down personal, cultural and

social barriers, enabling inhibited students to contribute their own ideas rather than

24

acquiesce to a more dominant peer and thus foster a more collaborative learning

environment (Freiermuth, 2002). In highly visual disciplines such as mathematics

and statistics, online tutors and students need to be able to view, edit and post

diagrams and formulae directly in online postings. As noted in Section 1.4, with the

advent of chat clients that allow handwriting as well as typing of text, posting of

diagrams and formulae is possible (Loch & McDonald, 2007).

The real power of synchronous communication in enhancing teaching and

learning lies in its allowance ―for immediate and timely feedback and creat[ing] a

strong social presence more easily than asynchronous online environments‖ (Bates,

2005, p.188). It has been noted that ―video-conferencing can support interactivity

and collaborative work‖ (Bates, 2005, p. 188). Synchronous communication, through

its immediacy and capacity for spontaneity, can replicate a ―real‖ classroom

irrespective of distance and thus reduce the transactional distance between teacher

and learner (Section 2.2.1). However, it requires considerable prior planning

including preparedness on the part of the tutor for real-time improvisation and an

awareness of the impact of possible cognitive overload (Kear, Chetwynd, Williams

& Donelan, 2012). It would appear that finding the right balance is imperative to the

effective use of this medium.

The following section is dedicated to interaction in online learning. Here,

interaction is seen as an extension of the communication, discussed in this

subsection, into online learning contexts.

2.4 Interactions in online learning

Interaction is defined as ―reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two

actions. Interactions occur when these objects or events mutually influence one

another‖ (Wagner, 1994, p. 8). While it may be fitting to encourage autonomy and

independent thought associated with self-directed learning (Section 2.1.2), ―even the

innermost learning activities occur in a social context mediated by communicative

action‖ (Garrison, 2003, p. 164). Any educational experience presupposes some sort

of interaction. The question is what types of interaction should be enlisted and how

much of each type should be used.

Moore (1989) subdivided the ―what types‖ of interaction in online learning

into three distinct categories: learner-content (learner with content), learner-teacher

25

(learner with teacher) and learner-learner (learner with other learners). Some aspects

of learner-content interaction relate back to the traditional views of distance

education typical of andragogy and self-directed learning (Section 2.1.2), where

content was written material and learners were studying largely independently of the

teacher and institution. However, these days, this also includes multimedia

presentations and ―adaptive‖ systems that current technology affords and which

perform some of the formerly learner-teacher interaction (Anderson & Kuskis,

2007). Learner-teacher interaction, which can occur in both synchronous and

asynchronous forms, is where the teacher assists the students in interacting with the

content (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). This includes stimulating interest and motivation

to learn, providing additional explanation and providing counsel and support, where

the learner can draw on the knowledge and experience of the discipline expert,

typical of constructivism (Section 2.1.1). Learner-learner interaction goes beyond the

social component of support and motivation to a point where ―the act of engaging in

learner-learner interaction forces learners to construct or formulate ideas in a deep

learning sense‖ (Anderson & Kuskis, 2007, p. 297).

Expanding on Moore‘s model, Anderson (2003a) included three extra

categories: teacher-content, teacher-teacher, content-content interaction. Figure 2.1

represents these combined categories. The categories identified by Anderson (2003a)

add an interesting complexity to the previously cited interactions (from Moore,

1989).

Figure 2.1. Online interactions (after Anderson 2003a; Moore, 1989)

Teacher-content interaction is focused on instructional design marrying the

technology to the pedagogy to enhance student-content interaction. Teacher-teacher

interaction through networked scholarly communities of practice fosters sharing of

resources and experiences. Content-content interaction in the form of computer

26

programs which can ―retrieve information, operate other programs, make decisions,

and monitor resources on networks‖ is in the early stages of development and relies

upon the work of multidisciplinary teams which include computer scientists, linguists

and educators (Anderson & Kuskis, 2007, p. 304). This type of interaction could

provide more learner autonomy in the form of increased self-management and self-

monitoring, consistent with self-directed learning (Section 2.1.2).

Incorporating the social constructivist perspective, the challenge for educators

is to match a combination of these types of interactions to the types of learners, the

subject matter and the learning objectives to build a productive community of

learners. However, there may be some flexibility in that it could be possible through

instructional design to substitute one type of interaction for one of the others with

little loss in educational effectiveness (Anderson, 2003b). These sets of interactions

are represented in Figure 2.2 (reproduced here with the permission of T. Anderson).

According to this model, asynchronous and synchronous forms of

communication are not distinguished one from the other. Both forms of

communication can be used to foster collaborative learning and communities of

inquiry for student-student-teacher interaction. However, synchronous

communication allows immediate and more timely feedback to be given (Section

2.3.2).

Figure 2.2. Model of online learning showing types of interaction (Anderson, 2008)

27

While there is much of interest in Figure 2.2, a particular component which

will inform the methodology of the proposed study is the ―Community of inquiry‖ or

CoI which has been expanded into a framework for use in analysing online teaching

and learning (Garrison et al., 2000). The CoI framework (Figure 2.3) has its roots in

computer conferencing specifically in the context of asynchronous, text-based group

discussions rather than from a traditional distance education theoretical perspective

that assumed that students worked independently from each other (Garrison,

Anderson & Archer, 2010). This framework offers a lens by which the nature of the

educational transactions taking place in an online learning context can be

investigated (Akyol, Arbaugh et al., 2009). Through the interactions of the three

presences – social, cognitive and teaching presence, within a community of inquiry

supported by computer-mediated communication (Figure 2.3, reproduced here with

the permission of D. R. Garrison), knowledge is socially constructed (Section 2.1.1).

Figure 2.3. Community of inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000)

A criticism of the CoI framework is that it does not address issues of deep and

meaningful learning (Rourke & Kanuka, 2009). However, this framework adopts a

constructivist view by seeking to understand how knowledge is constructed rather

than an objectivist focus on learning outcomes, focusing on the nature of the

educational transaction (Akyol, Arbaugh et al., 2009). While the framework was

designed for exploratory and descriptive studies, there have been a number of studies

that have investigated the perception of learners, their experiences of the three

presences and inter-relationships among the presences over time (Arbaugh et al.,

28

2008; Akyol & Garrison, 2008). It has been argued that the inter-relationship of

social, cognitive, and teaching presence is required for quality interaction promoting

discourse for deep and meaningful learning to be achieved (Garrison & Cleveland-

Innes, 2005). The following discussion will provide further information on the three

core elements of the framework (Figure 2.3), namely, (i) social presence (Section

2.4.1), (ii) cognitive presence (Section 2.4.2), and (iii) teaching presence (Section

2.4.3).

2.4.1 Social presence

Social presence asks learners to establish personal and purposeful relationships to

foster effective communication and group cohesion (Garrison, 2007). By projecting

their personal characteristics into the community of inquiry, participants view one

another as ―real‖ people (Garrison & Archer, 2007). Garrison et al. (2000) proposed

that social presence is established through emotional expression, open

communication and group cohesion whereby participants create a supportive

environment where critical thinking and inquiry are fostered. Since visual cues are

not possible, emotional expression can be developed through the use of emoticons.

Open communication develops from an initial stage of students and teacher getting to

know one another, where understanding of expectations in the online community is

established and a level of comfort in communicating openly online follows (Garrison

& Arbaugh, 2007). Group cohesion develops around common goals based on

collaborative activity in the community of inquiry (Garrison, 2007).

While social presence does not guarantee that critical discourse will develop

in an online environment, it is difficult for such discourse to develop without the

establishment of social presence (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). In addition,

Hwang and Arbaugh (2006) showed a strong relationship between social presence

and learning outcomes. Social presence intersects with cognitive presence in an

educational context through collaborative activity with a common intellectual focus

when students recognise that they are not there just for social reasons (Garrison,

2007).

2.4.2 Cognitive presence

Cognitive presence is characterised by ―exploration, construction, resolution and

confirmation of understanding‖ (Garrison, 2007, p. 65). This presence develops

through practical inquiry. The practical inquiry model of Garrison et al. (2000) is

29

based upon the foundational ideas of Dewey (1933) (see Figure 2.4 and Section

2.1.1).

The two axes represent reflection on practice and assimilation of information

and construction of meaning incorporating both the shared and personal worlds.

Cognitive presence is initiated with a state of dissonance described as a triggering

event. This is followed by exploration which involves searching for information that

gives greater understanding of the problem. Students put forward suggestions for

consideration and brainstorm about the problem (Akyol & Garrison, 2010).

Integration involves combining or rejecting the ideas generated by this information

until a coherent concept is formed. Finally, resolution of the problem signifies

formulation of a solution or application of an idea. If this resolution is not successful,

the process of inquiry continues. Students have great difficulty in progressing from

the exploratory phase to integration and resolution (Vaughn & Garrison, 2005).

However, the topics being discussed and questions being posed have an impact on

the level of cognitive activity (Arnold & Ducate, 2006).

Figure 2.4. Practical inquiry model (Garrison et al., 2000)

Making students aware of the phases of inquiry and how they relate to the

prescribed task are ways of progressing the discussion to higher levels of response

(Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). To ensure that students move through the phases of the

practical inquiry model efficiently, teaching presence provides the necessary

guidance (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009; Garrison et al., 2010).

30

2.4.3 Teaching presence

Anderson, Rourke, Garrison and Archer (2001) defined teaching presence as ―the

design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of

realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes‖ (p.

5). Teaching presence balances cognitive and social issues, facilitating discourse and

direct instruction (Garrison et al., 2000; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). There seems to

be a consensus that teaching presence is a significant contributor to student

satisfaction, perceived learning and a sense of community (Garrison, 2007). The CoI

framework defines teaching presence by three categories: design and organisation,

facilitating discourse, and direct instruction (Garrison et al., 2000; Anderson et al.,

2001).

Design and organisation involves planning the educational experience both

before and during the progression of an online course of study. In building the

curriculum, the teacher adapts course content for online delivery by redesigning

lecture notes to include additional ―insights and other customised views of course

content‖ (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 6). Other elements include designing the methods

and assessments appropriate to the online environment, negotiating timelines and

providing guidance for students to make effective use of the online medium. This

instructional management in turn leads to a greater sense of community and higher

levels of learning on the part of the students (Shea, Li & Pickett, 2006). While these

conclusions are based on self-reported data, it would appear that too much structure

may inhibit students from engaging in meaningful online discourse (Gilbert &

Dabbagh, 2005).

The teacher in facilitating discourse to build understanding engages and

motivates students to interact with one another and the course content whereby

meaning is shared, areas of agreement and disagreement are identified and a

collaborative community of learners works towards consensus and understanding

(Garrison et al, 2000; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Teaching presence is not

necessarily only the realm of the teacher. Fellow students can play this very

important role in facilitating discourse (Garrison et al., 2000). However, an

advantage of an instructor providing the teaching presence is that this subject expert

is in a position to give feedback on student responses and keep discussion moving in

the most efficient and effective manner (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). The teacher is

31

responsible for keeping a balance in the discourse by encouraging students who are

less active in the discussions and curbing the contributions of overly dominant

students (Anderson et al., 2001). Interaction and discourse are crucial contributors to

higher order learning but not without structure and direction (Garrison, 2007).

Direct instruction is described as the teacher‘s provision of intellectual and

scholarly leadership by sharing with students their subject matter knowledge,

scaffolding learner knowledge to reach a higher level of understanding (Garrison &

Arbaugh, 2007). However, the pedagogical expertise of the teacher is also vital.

Awareness of the developmental progression of the inquiry process provided by the

teacher influences the quality of the discourse and the depth of the learning

(Anderson et al., 2001).

Even though there has been some debate over whether teaching presence is

three dimensional (design and organisation, facilitating discourse, and direct

instruction) or two dimensional (design and organisation, and directed facilitation),

there is merit in keeping the three dimensional construct of teaching presence as the

difference may be simply an artifact of the context being studied (Arbaugh &

Hwang, 2006; Garrison et al, 2010; Shea et al., 2006). With a greater understanding

of the role that teaching presence plays in online education, more purposeful

guidelines can be developed to help support online educators (Anderson et al., 2001).

Despite the fact that digital technologies provide opportunities for engaging a variety

of resources, teachers remain central in any learning situation (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009).

2.4.4 Applying the CoI framework in broader contexts

While the CoI framework was developed to describe asynchronous online

interaction, it may be applicable to synchronous interaction as it has been

demonstrated as relevant in a blended learning environment where there was a

mixture of face-to-face and online interaction (Akyol, Garrison & Ozden, 2009). The

CoI framework is relevant in learning contexts where the focus is on ―how we

construct knowledge as opposed to an objectivist focus on learning outcomes‖

(Akyol, Arbaugh et al., 2009, p. 124). However, to gain further insights into the

design of collaborative constructivist learning environments that provide deep and

meaningful learning experiences, the dynamics of the relationship amongst the three

CoI presences needs to be understood (Akyol & Garrison, 2010).

32

2.4 Summary of the literature review

The literature review undertaken in this chapter has presented details on (i) theories

of learning, (i) distance education and online learning, (iii) computer-mediated

communication, and (iv) interactions in online learning. Each of these has informed

the research study described in this document. Particularly, the Community of

Inquiry (CoI) model (Garrison et al., 2000) has provided a useful framework for

analysing the ―nature of the educational transaction‖ that takes place in the online

synchronous tutorial by considering the ―interaction‖ amongst the three core

elements: (i) social, (ii) cognitive, and (iii) teaching presence. By taking into account

student perceptions of the value of the online synchronous tutorial and unpacking the

content of the dialogue used to develop understanding of concepts in introductory

statistics in the online tutorials, it is believed that greater insights into the nature of

the educational transaction, and thus the teaching and learning of statistical concepts,

can be achieved. The following chapter (Chapter 3) presents the methodology of the

research study.

33

Chapter 3: Research methodology

This chapter describes the research design and specific methodology adopted by this

study. As noted in the literature review, most studies related to online synchronous

environments are in social science contexts such as Teacher Education (Section

2.3.2). There are few studies that specifically investigate the contributions that online

synchronous environments make to interaction and learning in quantitative

disciplines such as introductory statistics (Section 2.2.3). Since the online

synchronous environment being studied includes human activity located in the real

world where it can only be understood in that specific context, a case study

methodology is considered appropriate (Gillham, 2000; Yin, 2009).

By examining the processes of an online synchronous tutorial in introductory

statistics at a regional university in Australia, this case study seeks to answer the

following question:

How does an online synchronous environment contribute to the learning of

statistical concepts by distance learners?

As introduced in Chapter 1 of this document, the aims of this study are:


interaction in the learning of statistical concepts in this environment;


discipline context;





Firstly, the research design, including the research setting (Section 3.1.1), the

participants enlisted (Section 3.1.2), and the sequence of the study (Section 3.1.3) are

explained. The research method, including data collection (Section 3.2.1), data

34

analysis (Section 3.2.2), and validity of the study (Section 3.2.3) are elaborated.

Finally, the chapter will conclude with a brief summary (Section 3.3).

3.1 Research design

A qualitative paradigm was adopted for this study, whereby the research was

conducted in a natural setting, using methods that are interactive and humanistic

(Creswell, 2003; Gillham, 2000). The methodological approach is interpretive with a

focus on constructivist investigation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The setting (online

synchronous environment), the actors (volunteer participants studying introductory

statistics), the events (online tutorial) and the process (interactions within the online

tutorial) are examined (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The researcher built rapport and

credibility with the participants while also reflecting on her role as participant-

observer (Creswell, 2003; see Section 1.7 for more detail on the role of the

researcher in this study). Multiple methods of data collection have been enlisted

(Creswell, 2003; see Section 3.2.1 for more details). Themes and issues are identified

(Stake, 1995).

Of the selection of qualitative designs from which to choose, case study is the

most appropriate for this research as the focus is on a ―how‖ type question, the

behaviour of the participants was not manipulated and the phenomenon sits within a

context from which it cannot be separated and so both aspects needed to be explored

(Yin, 2009). Case study methodology determined the strategies of inquiry, data

collection, analysis, and interpretation, since the focus of the study was on an in-

depth exploration of the interactions that took place in a particular location at a

particular time (Creswell, 2003). The ―case‖ in this study is defined by the following

―bounded‖ conditions: an online tutorial group of up to twelve volunteer participants

from the group of distance students studying an introductory statistics course at a

regional university in Australia. In keeping with the qualitative paradigm, purposeful

sampling was used to best understand the interactions taking place in online tutorials

(Creswell, 2003; Yin, 2009). Consistent with case study design and as previously

noted, multiple sources of data were employed, including surveys, observations,

interviews and audio-visual recordings. While survey data is more commonly used in

quantitative studies, it was only used here as a precursor to more detailed observation

and interview data.

35

Case study methodology has been developed by two main proponents, Robert

Yin and Robert Stake and both viewpoints will inform this research study. For

example, Yin (2009) contended that case studies can be categorised as explanatory,

exploratory or descriptive. An explanatory case study is used to explain causal links,

whereas an exploratory study is appropriate when exploring a situation where there

are no clear outcomes, and a descriptive study is used to describe an intervention or

phenomenon (Yin, 2009). However, case studies can also be distinguished as

intrinsic, instrumental or collective (Stake, 1995). While Yin (2009) and Stake

(1995) used different terminology to define variation amongst case studies, they

essentially make similar distinctions. While this research study falls somewhere

between Yin‘s exploratory and Stake‘s instrumental definitions of case study

methodology, it sought to understand the nature of the interaction taking place in the

online synchronous tutorial where the researcher was a participant-observer, and as

such aligns more closely with the Stake methodology. As an instrumental case study

the issues predominate and ―an ongoing interpretative role of the researcher is

prominent‖ (Stake, 1995, p. 43). In summary, this study explored ―how‖ an online

synchronous tutorial might contribute to the teaching and learning of introductory

statistics with the hope that insights gained will be useful to other educators as they

extend the boundaries of support for distance students studying quantitative content.

3.1.1 Research setting

The specific context for this investigation was an introductory undergraduate

statistics course taught across one semester by statistics specialists as a service to

other disciplines, namely, Psychology, Business, Commerce, Biology, Biomedical

Science, Chemistry and Physics. This course had an approximate enrolment of 400

students who participated in either internal (25%) or external mode (75%).

While core to these programs at the University, students embarking on this

course do not generally understand at first why they have to study it. Anecdotally, it

would seem that these students see the content as being quite different from that of

their mainstream discipline courses and they frequently question its relevance. For

many students, it is the first quantitative course that they are required to study at

university, and, as with many quantitative courses, it comes with more than its fair

share of ―bad press,‖ indicated by such comments as ―it‘s a really hard subject‖ and

―lots of people fail.‖ This is despite the evidence from course leader reports over

36

many semesters that failure rates for students who submit all of the assessment items

are quite low. It should be noted, however, that this course generally has relatively

high attrition rates, as evidenced by the number of students who fail to submit one or

more assignments and/or do not sit the final examination, which may mask

difficulties in understanding the content.

It would also seem that students‘ prior perceptions are that this course is a

difficult mathematics course even though there is very little formal mathematical

content other than inserting numbers into a simple linear equation or constructing a

graph of a linear function (mathematics that is taught in lower secondary school). As

a result, students are often fearful of the content being studied and, in distance

learning mode, this can then be compounded by the isolation that can be felt in the

distance learning situation.

For the purposes of this study, customised weekly online synchronous

tutorials were offered during eight of the eleven weeks of the Southern Summer

semester of 2010 (November 2010 to February 2011) with a ninth (revision) tutorial

being held during the examination period at the end of the semester. The tutorials did

not start until the fourth week of the semester so that students could settle into their

studies and to allow time for participants to be recruited. Participation was voluntary

and the online tutorials were conducted as a complement to, rather than a

replacement for, the standard University offering of online materials and

asynchronous support. The timing of these tutorials was negotiated with the students

enlisted to participate in the study and it was agreed to hold them for one hour on a

Tuesday evening. The researcher conducted the tutorials from her computer at home.

Students were similarly participating via an Internet connection which was

convenient to them, but, typically because of the ―after-hours‖ scheduling, was from

their homes.

At that time the University had a licence to use the interactive learning

platform Wimba Classroom and this was used to conduct the online tutorials. To

minimise the impact of technical issues with connecting to Wimba it was decided to

share alternative contact information for Windows Live Messenger and Skype, both

freely available Internet communications software. Participants were introduced to

the functionality of the Wimba Classroom in the first online tutorial.

37

To enhance the online experience, participants were requested, where

possible, to use a headset with microphone to reduce the impact of background noise.

However, participants were still able to contribute by entering text through the Chat

window in Wimba if they were unable to use a microphone. As previously noted, this

online synchronous tutorial support was an addition to the usual asynchronous

discussion forum traditionally offered in this introductory statistics course.

3.1.2 Participants

This study enlisted the participation of a group of 12 volunteers from the

approximate 300 distance students initially enrolled in the introductory statistics

course in a weekly online synchronous tutorial for eight weeks of the semester.

While the final group of study participants was less than 5% of the original cohort

enrolled at the beginning of the semester, at least 30 students expressed interest in

either being in the study or participating in an online tutorial that was not related to

the research study. A separate online synchronous tutorial was conducted for the

latter group of students. What was being requested in this study was additional to

minimum course participation requirements and, as not all students studying this

course were likely to be available or willing to be available to participate in an online

activity at a specific time, this necessitated the use of volunteers with flexible time

commitments. As a result this case study required purposeful selection of distance

students. It was expected that volunteers would see potential benefits in participating

in an online synchronous tutorial and thus be prepared to commit to a weekly virtual

meeting at a specified time. It should be noted that volunteers are not necessarily

representative of all students studying the introductory statistics course. Further to

this, it was anticipated that by selecting willing participants, understanding of how an

online synchronous environment contributed to the learning of statistical concepts by

distance learners could be maximised (Stake, 1995).

The size of the tutorial group was originally restricted to 10 participants as

this number was perceived to give all participants a reasonable chance to participate

actively in discussions (Loch & McDonald, 2007). However, more than 10

volunteered. It was initially thought that if more than 10 students volunteered, more

than one group would be formed to provide a ―literal replication‖ of the case study

(Yin, 2009). Using multiple cases would have allowed greater understanding of the

original case by providing an opportunity to investigate similarities and differences

38

between the cases (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2009). However, with only 12

volunteers this was not deemed possible. It was decided to form one tutorial group of

12 participants.

The researcher acted as facilitator of the online tutorial. As participant-

observer, the researcher facilitated and observed the interaction of the learners in the

online tutorial. Being ―inside‖ the case provided invaluable opportunities for

producing an ―accurate‖ view of the case study phenomenon (Yin, 2009). Being

aware of possible pitfalls was essential as while a participant-observer may be in a

position to gain greater insights into interpersonal behaviours and motives, she may

also be accused of bias due to manipulation of events (Yin, 2009). Being open and

honest about actions taken by the participant-observer through corroboration using

multiple sources of data aimed to minimise the impact and perception of bias while

enhancing the value of the ―thick description‖ that resulted (Stake, 1995). This is

discussed further in Section 3.2.3.

3.1.3 Sequence of the study

A brief overview of the four stages of the study (preparation, data collection, data

analysis and presentation of results) was given in Chapter 1 (Section 1.6). This will

now be further elaborated.

Prior to enlistment of participants to the study, the Data Analysis Course

Leader posted a message on the Course Discussion Forum introducing the researcher

and her research project to the students enrolled in the course. She briefly explained

the researcher‘s role in the Course Teaching Team (online student academic support)

and reassured students that their decision on whether to participate or not in the study

would have no impact on their results or the support that they would receive in the

course. She added that the researcher had no part in the marking of their assessments

or the finalising of their grades.

Following this introduction, the researcher posted an invitation to participate

in the study on the Course Discussion Forum. This invitation contained information

about the purpose of the study and expectations of participation. The researcher

asked interested students to email her for further information. It was expected that

students who had the time and commitment would offer to participate. Students who

responded to this invitation were contacted by the researcher and sent a copy of the

39

approved Participant Information Form which included a description of the project,

what was expected of participants (what their role was to be in the study and what

the researcher‘s role as participant-observer was to be in the study), expected benefits

of participating in the study, potential risks of participating, assurances of

confidentiality, and avenues for obtaining further information or expressing any

concerns that they might have with the conduct of the study.

Students were also asked to answer five questions (see the initial survey

questions in Section 4.1 and Appendix A). By responding to this email and

answering the five questions of the initial survey students were formally giving their

consent to participate in the study. This email explicitly stated what they were

required to do beyond participation in the online tutorial (answering survey questions

and participating in an interview at the end of the semester). Once participants were

enlisted a suitable time for the tutorials was negotiated, participants were given

information about running the Wimba Setup Wizard and a date was set to conduct an

introductory tutorial to orient participants to the functionality of Wimba Classroom.

The data collection stage of the study included administering the initial

survey (Appendix A), teaching in and recording the online synchronous tutorials

across a period of nine weeks, posing the weekly research questions related to

student perceptions of the tutorials (Appendix B) and conducting the final interviews

with individual participants (Appendix C). This stage of the study is summarised in

Figure 3.1. This is discussed in detail in Section 3.2.1.

Figure 3.1. Data collection process

At all times during the data collection process, the researcher was open and

honest with participants and attempted to not bias outcomes by commenting on

40

expectations of outcomes of the study (Gillham, 2000). Participants were assured of

confidentiality of the information collected and the anonymity of any responses used

in subsequent publication of the research.

Typical of case study methodology, the data collection stage of the study

blended into the data analysis stage of the study which included thematic coding of

responses to the initial survey and final interviews and detailed description of the

online synchronous tutorials (Stake, 1995). Synthesis of this coding and description

into the stories of four participants‘ individual experiences of the online synchronous

tutorials expanded the analysis and interpretation of the interaction taking place.

Content analysis of tutorial recordings using the Community of Inquiry framework

was instrumental to the interpretation of the interactions within the tutorials. This is

discussed in detail in Section 3.2.2.

As the final stage of the study, results are presented in three findings chapters

followed by discussion and conclusions. Chapter 4 presents outcomes from the initial

survey and the final interviews and identifies common themes related to the first

three aims of the study. Following this, Chapter 5 provides a detailed description of

each online synchronous tutorial with further insights using the lens of the

Community of Inquiry framework. Individual student stories in relation to their

experiences of and contributions to the online synchronous tutorials, as interpreted

by the researcher, are documented in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 completes the study with a

discussion of the findings and conclusions.

3.2 Research method

Consistent with case study methodology, multiple methods of data collection (as

described in Section 3.2.1) and analysis (as described in Section 3.2.2) were used to

investigate the interactions taking place in an online synchronous tutorial in a

quantitative discipline context. Triangulation of evidence through the analysis and

interpretation of these different types of data add strength to the findings through

greater understanding of the research participants and the context (Baxter & Jack,

2008; Stake, 1995).

3.2.1 Data collection

Different types of data were collected in order to corroborate what was happening in

the online synchronous environment (Yin, 2009). The primary data source was the

41

recordings of the weekly online tutorials. Secondary sources of data included the

initial survey, key research questions posed at the beginning of each tutorial, and the

final interviews. By gathering different types of data it was possible to look for

convergence, whereby different kinds of evidence bear on the same point, and

identify possible conflicts, thus giving a more holistic view of the phenomenon

(Gillham, 2000; Yin, 2009).

Data collection was completely by electronic means. The initial survey

questions were emailed to participants (see Sections 3.2.1.1 and 4.1 for details).

Screen capture software was used to record interactions taking place within the

online tutorials (Section 3.2.1.2). Research questions asked at the beginning of each

tutorial were answered using the Polling function within Wimba Classroom (Section

3.2.1.3). The recording capability within Wimba Classroom was used to record the

audio of the final interviews (Section 3.2.1.4).

3.2.1.1 Initial survey

While collection of survey data is not common within qualitative studies, case study

researchers can use survey data to support a holistic understanding of the

phenomenon being investigated (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Surveys allow the researcher

to ask questions in a more structured format (Silverman, 2006).

A survey was conducted prior to the commencement of the online

synchronous tutorials to gauge students‘ preparedness for studying Data Analysis

and their previous knowledge and experience of online learning. This initial survey

collected information on student preconceptions of studying the introductory

statistics course, their prior experience with mathematics, their previous involvement

in online discussion forums, their prior experience of online conferencing in other

courses and their reasons for participating in the online tutorial in introductory

statistics (see Appendix A for details). It was not unlike a structured interview where

there is a list of set questions in a particular order and the agenda is totally

predetermined by the researcher (Tellis, 1997). Analysis of these data is discussed in

Section 3.2.2.1 and results presented in Section 4.1.

3.2.1.2 Recordings of online tutorial sessions

Within Wimba Classroom it was possible to record some of the interaction taking

place in each online synchronous tutorial. These recordings (or archives) included

42

voice, text chat and screen capture of actions taking place on the virtual whiteboard,

including polling questions.

Since the recordings within Wimba Classroom did not give this information

in one integrated recording but rather as two separate records – a file containing a

transcript of the text chat and another file containing the audio and screen view of the

virtual whiteboard, the researcher had to record the tutorials using specialist screen

capture software. With this software it was possible to capture all the action taking

place in the tutorial in one complete representation. In order to do this it was

necessary to set up a second computer, other than the one being used by the

researcher to facilitate the tutorials. The researcher entered the Wimba Classroom

from this second computer using the name ―Moderator‖ so that the Classroom would

be visible on the screen of this second computer. Participants were made aware of

this prior to the start of the tutorials.

This study used these recordings and the comprehensive notes made while

listening to the recordings as documentation to support observations made by the

researcher, as participant-observer, in her understanding of the interactions occurring

in the online synchronous tutorial (Stake, 1995). Analysis of these data is discussed

in Section 3.2.2.2 and results of this analysis are presented in Chapter 5.

3.2.1.3 Weekly research questions

Following the introductory tutorial, at the beginning of each subsequent tutorial, a

number of key research questions were asked using the Polling function within

Wimba Classroom. These questions were a mixture of multiple-choice questions

allowing more than one response and open-ended questions (see Appendix B for

details).

Beginning in Tutorial 2, and then weekly, participants were asked about the

level of the content covered in the previous week‘s tutorial to ascertain if the material

was delivered at an appropriate level so that adjustments could be made as necessary.

They were required to select amongst several options: too easy; nothing new; nothing

new but helpful; thought provoking; confusing; just right; too hard. They were

allowed to select more than one option. Another question that was asked each week

was the open-ended question: ―What was the most important thing you got out of last

week‘s tutorial?‖ which allowed participants the freedom to answer as they pleased,

so as to obtain the broadest possible view.

43

Several times across the semester (during Tutorials 3, 6, 7, 8 and the

Revision Tutorial) participants were asked: ―How are you feeling about Data

Analysis at this point in time?‖ Choices given for this question included: still

worried; getting on top of it; struggling; enjoying it; hating it; all good. Again they

were given the opportunity to choose more than one option. On two occasions

(during Tutorials 4 and 8), participants were asked to identify: ―Which topic have

you found most challenging?‖ from a list of topics that had been covered to that date.

They were allowed to choose two from the list, again to obtain the broadest possible

view as typically most students struggle with a number of topics.

In Tutorial 2 participants were asked: ―How do you feel about the online

tutorial environment?‖ Choices included: too impersonal; a bit daunting; a bit

clunky; easy to use; a bit tricky to navigate; just like being in a normal classroom; a

bit intimidating; quite comfortable. For this question participants were only allowed

one choice to focus attention on the most predominant aspect of the online

experience.

In the final tutorial (Revision Tutorial) two extra questions were added.

Both were open-ended questions. The first of these asked: ―Why did you choose to

participate in the online tutorial?‖ This question had also been asked in the initial

survey. The other asked: ―In what way did the online tutorial contribute to your

learning of Data Analysis?‖ This question was again posed in the final interview.

These questions were repeated on these occasions to check consistency of response

from the participants. Triangulation of evidence obtained from these differing times

across the semester added to the strength of the study by ―corroborating the same fact

or phenomenon‖ (Yin, 2009, p. 116). Analysis of these data is discussed in Section

3.2.2.1 and responses to these questions in each tutorial are given in Chapter 5.

3.2.1.4 Final interviews

Interviews allow researchers to gain insights into multiple realities (Stake, 1995). In

case studies, interviews are ―guided conversations rather than structured queries‖

(Yin, 2009, p. 106). Because most case studies relate to issues of human beliefs,

feelings, perceptions and behaviours, interviews are seen as essential sources of

evidence (Yin, 2009). However, interview questions can lead to alternative

interpretations by the interviewer and respondent that may need to be resolved

through further discourse (Mishler, 1991).

44

Silverman (2006) proposed three models relevant to interview data:

positivism, emotionalism and constructionism. Which approach is followed depends

upon the purpose of the interview and the status attached to the data collected. Since

this was an instrumental case study incorporating a need for general understanding, it

used an unstructured interview consistent with emotionalism, to elaborate on shared

authentic experiences (Stake, 1995). Even though open-ended questions were used

to obtain self-reported unique descriptions and interpretations of how the online

tutorials contributed to their learning of introductory statistics, the researcher was

mindful to keep participants focused on the issues while maintaining a friendly, non-

threatening manner during the interviews (Yin, 2009). However, it was also essential

to be aware that individuals made sense of their experiences through telling their

stories, so the researcher assisted in this process by using a conversational style thus

reducing chances of a power differential in the interview situation, encouraging the

participant to become a collaborator in interpreting the course of events (Mishler,

1991).

With a list of questions related to the aims of the research study and aspects

of the Community of Inquiry framework described in Section 2.4, the researcher

aimed to corroborate, or clarify further, the evidence gathered from the ―thick‖

description and content analysis of the online tutorial recordings. Though some of

these questions were based on the Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument

developed by Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, Shea and

Swan (2008) and aimed to elicit similar information, the interview questions were

not as explicit as the CoI Survey Instrument, thus allowing participants to make

sense of their own experiences (see Appendix C for details). The intention was to ask

questions in an objective manner, actively listen, take notes and then write a report

for each interview in order to capture the context, nuance and innuendo (Stake, 1995;

Yin, 2009). Further to this, a recording of their particular interview was made

available to each participant to check the content (member checking) and to add

anything that may have been missed (Stake, 1995). The final interviews primarily

investigated participants‘ reasons for participating in the online synchronous tutorials

and their views on the contribution that the tutorials made to their learning of

introductory statistics. Analysis of these data is discussed in Section 3.2.2 and results

are presented in Section 4.2.

45

3.2.2 Data analysis

Analysis of data in a case study is informed by ―the researcher‘s presence, the nature

of the interaction between researcher and participants, the triangulation of the data,

the interpretation of perceptions, and rich thick description‖ (Merriam, 1988, p. 120).

Consistent with case study methodology, a variety of data analysis techniques were

used in this study (Yin, 2009). These techniques can broadly be classified as thematic

analysis and content analysis. Thematic analysis involves the emergence of codes

from the data whereas content analysis uses codes which have been determined prior

to searching for these in the data (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005).

Thematic analysis was conducted using data collected from the initial survey,

weekly research questions, recordings of online tutorials and final interviews. During

the process of note-taking from each of these data sources and categorising of this

material initially informed by the study‘s purpose, a number of themes emerged

(Merriam, 1988). These are discussed in more detail in Sections 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2.

Content analysis informed by the elements of the Community of Inquiry

framework (Garrison et al., 2000; see Section 2.4) was used to investigate the

dynamics of the interactions taking place in the online synchronous tutorials. When

performing content analysis, consideration needs to be given to the theoretical base

of the instrument used (in this case the CoI framework), the unit of analysis (in this

case a message) and the inter-rater reliability (De Wever et al., 2006). These are

discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2.3.

3.2.2.1 Analysis of initial survey, weekly questions and final interviews

As outlined in Section 3.2.1.1, data was collected on student preconceptions of

studying the introductory statistics course, their prior experience of the online

environment, their reasons for participating in the online synchronous tutorials and

their perceptions of the value of these tutorials to learning quantitative content.

Comparison of the expectations identified in the initial survey with attitudes exposed

by the weekly research questions (Section 3.2.1.3) and perceptions of the success or

otherwise of the tutorials explored in the final interviews (Section 3.2.1.4) produced

themes to be examined to gain insights into the contribution that the online

synchronous tutorials made to student learning. Emergent themes included types of

interactions amongst the participants (students and teacher), the impact of immediacy

46

in synchronous communication and the affordances of the technology. These themes

are discussed in Chapter 4.

3.2.2.2 Analysis of interaction in the online synchronous tutorials

As indicated in Section 3.2.1.2, interaction in the online synchronous tutorials was

recorded using screen capture software which included voice, text chat and action

taking place on the virtual whiteboard. Detailed note-taking of these integrated

recordings of each tutorial was required in order to identify the common themes.

These themes highlighted any aspect that impacted on the conduct of the tutorials,

including which participants were present, the format of and content discussed in the

tutorials and the nature of the interactions taking place within the tutorials. The basis

of initial analysis of the interactions can be attributed to the three distinct categories

of Moore (1989): learner-content, learner-teacher and learner-learner (see Section

2.4), subsequently referred to in this document as student-to-content, student-to-

teacher and student-to-student. These themes are discussed in Chapter 5.

3.2.2.3 Community of Inquiry framework coding and analysis

A number of models have been proposed for analysing interaction with most having

been influenced by the Henri (1992) model which consisted of five dimensions,

namely, participation, interaction, social, cognitive and metacognitive (Gunawardena

& McIsaac, 2004). Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson (1997) used Henri‘s model to

develop a five phase model of interaction analysis. In the meantime Garrison,

Anderson and Archer (2000) developed an interaction model to describe the nature

and quality of critical discourse in an online community of inquiry. In this research

study the interactions taking place in the online synchronous tutorial were further

analysed using coding based on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework

(Garrison et al., 2000; see Section 2.4 for details). The CoI framework with its three

elements of social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence provided the

theoretical base for the analysis of the dynamics within the tutorial, as captured in the

recordings, and the changes in these dynamics over time across the semester. Content

analysis informed by the CoI framework is a powerful method that can be used to

understand text-based educational conferencing and discourse (Garrison, Cleveland-

Innes, Koole & Kappelman, 2006). However, this framework is applied here to

recordings that include both text-based and voice interaction. Rourke and Anderson

(2004) suggested that instead of developing new coding schemes for

47

content/transcript analysis, researchers should use schemes that have been developed

and used in previous research thus contributing to the validity of an existing

procedure. Garrison et al. (2006) noted that ―a sound theoretical framework and

model is essential to address validity issues‖ (p. 2) – coding schemes must be both

reliable and efficient. Consistent with these views content analysis using the coding

schemes adopted by the CoI framework were used to analyse the recordings of three

tutorials (Tutorials 3, 6 and 8) to highlight changes in dynamics amongst CoI

presences within the tutorials across the semester of the data collection stage of the

study (see Section 5.10).

Other than the theoretical base of content analysis, De Wever et al. (2006)

identified two important issues: the unit of analysis and inter-rater reliability. They

concluded that the unit of analysis, ranging from an individual sentence to a

complete message, is dependent on the context. For the online synchronous tutorials

in this study, the unit of analysis was a single message on a single topic or statistical

concept as it was more easily defined without ambiguity. The simplest and most

popular way of measuring inter-rater reliability is the ―percent agreement.‖

Alternatively, Garrison et al. (2006) suggested a negotiated approach to coding

transcripts. After independently coding transcripts, the coders discuss their codes and

work towards a consensus. This negotiated approach is particularly useful in

exploratory research where the main focus is on gaining a deeper understanding of

the learning taking place. Due to limitations in the conduct of this study, coding of

the data was not able to be completed by two independent raters to either ascertain

inter-rater reliability or perform a negotiated coding. As a compromise, the

researcher coded the tutorial recordings chosen for this analysis on two occasions

separated by approximately two months and used a ―negotiated approach‖ to arrive

at a ―consensus‖ on the coding to enhance the reliability of the analysis. As interest

in this study was in the dynamic relationship amongst the three presences of the CoI,

coding was carried out using the elements of social, teaching and cognitive presence

informed by the categories and indicators of each element (Garrison, 2007). In

addition to this, messages were coded in terms of the medium used to communicate,

namely text chat, microphone or emoticon/icon. The outcomes of this analysis are

presented in Section 5.10.

48

3.2.2.4 Analysis using narrative description

In a socio-cultural approach, four narratives have been developed to provide more

detailed insights into individuals‘ expectations, perceptions and experiences of the

online synchronous tutorial (see Chapter 6). Data from the initial survey (Section

4.1), the research questions and interaction in the tutorials (Sections 5.1 – 5.9), and

the final survey (Section 4.2) have been used to produce these ―descriptive portraits‖

(Merriam, 1988, p.127). For these narratives four participants were chosen to

represent the diversity in the research group in terms of age, gender, discipline of

study, geographic location and personal circumstance.

3.2.3 Validity of the study

In qualitative studies, validity is thought of in terms of ―trustworthiness‖ or

―authenticity‖ (Creswell, 2003). Some protocols to ―get it right‖ come under the

name ―triangulation‖ (Stake, 1995) which involves using information from different

data sources to build a coherent justification for the themes identified (Creswell,

2003). Construct validity is addressed by using multiple sources of evidence,

establishing a ―chain of evidence‖ whereby the link between evidence and

conclusions can be easily followed (Yin, 2009). Bias that the researcher brings to the

study needs to be clarified in an open and honest narrative. In addition, the researcher

needs to include ―negative or discrepant information that runs counter to the themes‖

to add credibility (Creswell, 2003, p. 196).

Some of the strategies that were used to strengthen the validity of this study

included triangulation of different data sources, using rich, thick description and

clarifying any bias brought to the study by the researcher (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009).

Triangulation also included analysing the data using different approaches. The

recordings of the online tutorials were analysed using the interaction model of Moore

(1989) and then further analysed using the Community of Inquiry framework of

Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000). Answers to the weekly research questions

were examined for consistency with themes identified from the initial survey data.

These were then compared with themes identified in the final interviews. This

triangulation of evidence added to the reliability of the content analysis of tutorial

recordings and the overall conclusions drawn.

49

3.3 Summary of the research methodology

This study enlisted a case study methodology to examine the interactions taking

place in online synchronous tutorials in a quantitative discipline to ascertain the

contribution that this activity brings to student learning. Consistent with case study

methodology, multiple methods of data collection and analysis were employed.

Outcomes from these are presented in the following three chapters. Chapter 4

presents the findings from the initial survey and final interviews. The interaction

taking place within the tutorials is described in detail in Chapter 5. The findings of

the study conclude with the presentation of four narratives in Chapter 6.

50

Chapter 4: Survey and interview findings

Applying case study methodology, multiple methods of data collection (as described

in Section 3.2.1) were used to investigate the interactions taking place in an online

synchronous tutorial in a quantitative discipline context. This chapter, along with

Chapters 5 and 6, describes and summarises the data collected to address the

following aims (as introduced in Chapter 1):




discipline context;


learning statistical concepts; and,



This chapter, with particular attention to the third aim of the study, will focus

on the findings from (a) the initial survey (Section 4.1); and (b) the final interviews

(Section 4.2). Chapter 5 will present findings from the main data source of the study,

namely, the online synchronous tutorial, while Chapter 6 will present four narratives

which document the experiences of particular participants.

4.1 Initial Survey

Distance students enrolled in the introductory statistics course were invited to

participate in the research study on interactive online learning support (Section

3.1.3). Twenty-one students responded to this invitation. Seventeen of these students

were emailed the participant information form and the initial survey of five questions

(Appendix A). The remaining four students had delayed in their response to the

initial invitation to participate and, after an email exchange which included

information about the timing of the online tutorial, indicated that they would not be

able to participate at this time due to other commitments. Twelve students,

51

subsequently referred to as S1-S12, responded to the initial survey (see Section 4.2.1

for details).

Response to these survey questions, as agreed in the study‘s ethics approval,

was confirmation of a student‘s consent to participate in the study (Section 3.1.3).

This initial survey collected information on student preconceptions of studying the

introductory statistics course, their prior experience with mathematics, their

involvement in online discussion forums, their prior experience of online

conferencing in other courses and their reasons for participating in the online tutorial

in introductory statistics (Section 3.2.1.1).

4.1.1 Preconception of studying the introductory statistics course

The first question of the initial survey, ―Write a few words expressing how you feel

about studying Data Analysis?‖ was designed to elicit participants‘ initial feelings

about studying the course. Due to the prior teaching experiences of the researcher in

this course over a period of more than twenty years and the ongoing ―bad press‖ that

the course is known to receive, it was anticipated that there would be predominantly

negative feelings amongst participants about studying the introductory statistics

course.

Contrary to expectations, participants expressed feelings that ranged from

excitement and confidence to apprehension and panic at the thought of studying Data

Analysis. Four of the twelve participants (S1, S2, S6 and S8) expressed positive

feelings towards the prospect of studying the course. Two, S1 and S2, who were

studying mathematics degrees were looking forward to studying the introductory

statistics course. One of the two studying mathematics (S1) noted the usefulness of

studying statistics in today‘s society. Non-mathematician (S6) felt confident because

of the support available, while another non-mathematician (S8), having been a good

mathematics student at school (even though that was many years ago) was excited by

the challenge.

Six of the twelve participants (S3, S5, S9, S10, S11 and S12) expressed

negative feelings towards the prospect of studying statistics. Some expressed feelings

of apprehension because of the perception that the content would be difficult (S3, S9

and S10). Others used words such as ―scared‖ (S5), ―daunted‖ (S12) and ―panicked‖

(S11).

52

The remaining two participants were repeating the course. One (S7) was

noncommittal about the prospect of repeating the course, but recognised its value to

his discipline studies of biology. The other participant (S4) was nervous about taking

the course again, but noted better preparedness this time, commenting ―more familiar

with the software this time around and the language which I think was the problem

last time‖ and ―motivated to learn and get it right.‖ At the last attempt, circumstances

had not been conducive to studying as S4 did not have reliable Internet access and

was using borrowed materials.

Feelings were not overwhelmingly negative as had been anticipated by the

researcher. While about half of the participants expressed concerns at the prospect of

studying Data Analysis, the other half generally reported being confident and

excited.

4.1.2 Effect of prior experience of mathematics on learning of statistics

The second question of the initial survey, ―How do you think your past experiences

in mathematics might affect your learning in this subject?‖ was designed to obtain

any evidence of mathematics anxiety amongst the participants, as in past cohorts

many students from non-mathematical backgrounds had expressed concern about

their lack of mathematical knowledge, initially believing it to be a disadvantage

when studying this course.

Opinions about the impact of previous experiences of mathematics on

learning statistics were generally positive where participants had favourable

experiences when learning mathematics or statistics in the past, either in high school

or tertiary studies (S1, S2, S3, S4, S7, S8 and S12). Understandably the participants

who were currently studying mathematics at the tertiary level (S1 and S2) identified

that they had good mathematics skills and that this may be advantageous, however

one (S2) recognised that while basic mathematics skills were needed, introductory

statistics was quite different from mathematics. Another participant (S3) also felt that

past experiences in mathematics would assist, but recognised the difference between

mathematics and statistics as ―the interpretation and writing up of ‗findings‘ is

something I will have to concentrate and work at.‖

Where participants had less favourable past experiences or their exposure to

mathematics learning had been some time ago, concern was expressed. However,

53

generally this concern was tempered by optimism towards their studies in the coming

semester. Two participants (S5 and S6) commented on poor past performance in

statistics, but were still hopeful of doing better in this introductory statistics course.

In particular, S5 ―hated stats at high school,‖ while S6 attributed the past poor

performance to lack of motivation and poor work ethic, not to a lack of mathematical

ability. Several participants (S9, S10 and S11) were a little concerned because it had

been some time since they had studied mathematics. In spite of this, two (S10 and

S11) felt that they could overcome any anticipated disadvantage.

While the research group had diverse past mathematical experiences, none of

the participants emphasised their mathematics background as being a cause for

concern in their studies of introductory statistics.

4.1.3 Previous experience of using discussion forums

The third question of the initial survey, ―Do you use the discussion group facility in

Moodle? If so, in what courses have you used it?‖ was posed to gauge previous

uptake by participants of existing avenues for students to engage online with

teaching staff and other students. Engagement, in this instance, could have been

simply reading the discussion posts of others (lurking), posting questions to the

forum about course content and/or course organisation, or answering questions posed

by others. The distinction in the type of engagement was not necessarily gleaned in

responses to this question. However, they did indicate whether participants had, in

the past, been self-motivated to use such online resources to support their studies.

About half of the group reported that they had participated in discussion

forums to some degree in their previous studies, engaging with this asynchronous

form of support. In addition, it needs to be acknowledged that participants were at

different stages in their programs of study and that not all courses supported active

discussion forums.

Seven participants (S1, S2, S6, S7, S8, S9 and S12) indicated no prior

experience of discussion forums. On the other hand, five participants (S3, S4, S5,

S10 and S11) signified varying levels of involvement in discussion forums – S3, S5,

S10 and S11 having used discussion forums in all previous courses and S4 having

used discussion forums ―a fair bit this year,‖ but with no mention of previous years.

Again, the research participants were a diverse group with respect to engagement

54

with online support generally offered through the learning management system used

by the University.

4.1.4 Previous experience of online synchronous communication

The fourth question of the initial survey asked, ―Have you participated in

communicating with tutors and/or students online in any other courses (e.g. MSN

Messenger, Skype, Wimba, etc.), where all of you have been connected to the

Internet at the same time? If so, which courses, who was involved (a group of

students only, a group of students and a tutor, or just you and a tutor), what software

was used and when did this happen?‖ This question was used to inform about the

potential need within the group of training in the use of Wimba Classroom prior to

the commencement of the online tutorials. Answers to this question could also

indicate how comfortable or otherwise the participants were with synchronous online

communication in comparison with the asynchronous form of communication

investigated by the previous question in the survey.

Five participants (S1, S2, S7, S11 and S12) acknowledged that they had no

experience of synchronous online communication with students and/or teaching staff,

however S12 noted ―I have used MSN and Skype privately.‖ This indicated that

some training in the use of online conferencing software, in this case Wimba

Classroom, may be necessary.

The remaining seven participants had used a variety of forms of synchronous

communication in groups and/or one-to-one. Two participants (S4 and S5) had used

Wimba Classroom in group sessions with a tutor for a number of their courses,

though not in the same discipline areas (S4 in psychology and S5 in a tertiary

preparation program). Both participants were very positive about the experience. The

psychology student (S4) had not only used the synchronous online medium in class

discussions with a tutor, but also in individual and group text chats with other

students where a tutor was not present. One participant (S6) had used synchronous

online communication in the workplace rather than to support university studies.

Three participants (S3, S8 and S10) had each used Wimba Classroom in only one

course with a group of students and a tutor present, while another participant (S9) did

―communicate with one other student only via MSN Messenger and also Skype

occasionally.‖

55

From this, it can be seen that four of the five participants who had accessed

discussion forums (S3, S4, S5 and S10) had also taken advantage of synchronous

online communication opportunities (Section 4.1.3). It was anticipated that these

participants may be somewhat more comfortable with interacting in the online

tutorials. However, this proved to be not necessarily the case as S4 was the only one

of these to be consistently active in the tutorials throughout the semester (Section

5.10).

4.1.5 Decision to participate in the online tutorial

The fifth question of the initial survey, ―What made you decide to participate in the

online tutorial in Data Analysis?‖ elicited initial student expectations of what

participating in the online tutorial might offer them. The intention was to ask this

question again in the final interviews and compare responses.

Seven participants (S3, S5, S7, S8, S9, S10 and S11) commented on the

potential benefits of interacting with others in a ―classroom‖ community. These

benefits included support for learning (S5), learning from others‘ points of view (S3),

repetition to help things ―sink in‖ (S8 and S9), being able to listen (auditory learner;

S10), the value of immediacy of answers to questions (S11) and learning different

ways to solve problems (S7). Related to this, two participants (S1 and S4) viewed the

online tutorial as a regular opportunity amongst their normal daily activities to ―keep

on track‖ (S4) and that this time specifically set aside to devote to the study of the

statistics course would make it easier (S1).

Of the remaining three participants, one of the mathematics majors (S2) was

interested in the research aspect of the project and saw involvement as a way of

getting a greater understanding of how research worked, yet still noting that ―it may

be worthwhile to help with learning in the subject.‖ Another (S12) was looking for

involvement in the project to increase chances of success in the course, but did not

comment on how the online tutorial might help this. The final participant (S6)

expressed interest in the technological aspect of being involved in the online tutorial,

obtaining greater understanding of how Wimba worked, however still showing an

appreciation of the benefits for learning, ―can kill two birds with one stone.‖

56

4.2 Final interviews

Final interviews were conducted with participants using the functionality of Wimba

Classroom to converse with each participant individually and record the conversation

(Section 3.2.1.4). With a list of questions related to the aims of the research study

and aspects of the Community of Inquiry framework described in Section 2.4, the

researcher aimed to corroborate or clarify further the evidence gathered from the

analysis of the recordings of the online tutorials and the initial survey. The researcher

endeavoured to ask the questions in an objective manner by not leading the

participants in their responses. While a full transcript of each interview was not

produced, the researcher listened to each interview several times, took notes and then

wrote a report for each interview. Further to this, each participant was given access

to his or her recorded interview and so each had an opportunity to check what was

said and add anything that may have been missed.

4.2.1 Participant demographics and reasons for participating

The participants (n=9) who attended at least three of the nine online synchronous

tutorials across the semester (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9) were

interviewed at the end of semester, after the Data Analysis examination but prior to

results being released (see Table 5.1 for attendance details). The participants came

from of a variety of different backgrounds and life experiences. The median age of

the nine participants was 34 years, with ages ranging from 25 to 69 years. Five of the

participants (S3, S4, S6, S8, and S9) were studying psychology, two (S1 and S2)

were studying mathematics/statistics, one (S5) was studying business and one (S7)

was studying biology. Four of the participants (S1, S2, S5 and S9) were working full-

time, one (S3) was working part-time, one (S6) was studying full-time, one (S4) was

an at-home mother of a young child and two (S7 and S8) were retired.

Each participant was asked why they had decided to participate in the online

tutorial. Most comments related to some form of interaction (S1 and S3) within a

community of learners (S1). By being part of a community (S1 and S4), participants

thought that they would feel less isolated (S4, S5 and S6), it would help them to keep

up (S4), they would get to know others in the course (S9) and they could build a

relationship with the tutor (S2). It was believed that the online tutorial would provide

them with more motivation (S4) and it would help them with their learning (S2, S7,

S8 and S9), in particular hearing what others were thinking (S3). S6 summarised this

57

succinctly, ―the more contact you have with people about your work, the more you

can discuss it, the better your understanding. It opens up so much more than if you

are by yourself and isolated.‖ Some participants (S2, S4 and S6) also commented on

their involvement in the study as providing an opportunity to gain experience of

being in a research project, as they were anticipating doing a research project of their

own at some stage in their studies. These responses were consistent with those given

in the initial survey at the beginning of the research study but somewhat more

expansive.

4.2.2 Interaction with other participants and the tutor

When asked to reflect on how the participants in the study contributed to the process

and experience of the online tutorial, some comments related to the idea of a shared

responsibility in working together (S2, S5, S6, S8 and S9), where they could ―learn a

lot from each other‖ (S6). Participants commented that others would often ask

questions that they were wanting to ask (S4, S7 and S8), but also questions that they

had not thought to ask but realised that they would like to know about (S8). It was

noted that, in discussions in the tutorials, participants offered differing viewpoints,

different ways of thinking about things and different ways of saying things (S2, S3,

S4 and S7), to which S9 added that she ―hadn‘t thought about presenting it in that

way‖ and S5 further added ―if you were too embarrassed to ask a question and

somebody asked a similar question you didn‘t feel so stupid‖ and would think ―I am

not the only one struggling.‖ Participants found this type of support for one another

reassuring (S1), to the point of feeling comfortable with being corrected by other

participants (S4). S3 summed it up as ―they added the life to it,‖ to which S7 agreed

―with the tutor and other students it brings it much more to life to what you are trying

to study.‖

There was a general feeling that the presence of a tutor in the online tutorial

was needed to ―keep everyone on track‖ (S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5). Having the tutor

present made the online tutorial ―like being in a [real] classroom‖ (S7). One of the

benefits that the tutor brought to the situation was content knowledge (S6, ) which

meant that the tutor could help clarify concepts (S1 and S9) and give a broader

picture of how the topics fitted together (S3 and S8). S4 commented that the tutor

was ―giving us questions and making us think‖ and that ―it wasn‘t even lecture form,

actual questions and then we would discuss the questions, so then understanding

58

would happen.‖ While all believed that the tutor was an essential element in the

online tutorial, some (S2, S4 and S5) also considered that it would be useful to have

some sessions without a tutor present, where students could ―nut things out on our

own‖ (S9). Two participants (S7 and S8) thought that it would be good to have a

Wimba Classroom where students could meet with other ―study buddies‖ to work

together one-on-one. S2 suggested that he would like to use breakout rooms where

students could be set questions to discuss in a small groups and then report back to

the whole group for further discussion.

4.2.3 Perceived support of learning

When asked to reflect on how the online tutorial helped in their learning of Data

Analysis, participants identified things that could be summarised as interaction and

immediacy. Interaction in the tutorial produced opportunities for clarification of the

concepts and participants‘ understanding of the content (S2, S3 and S4). This

clarification came from the tutor and other participants by working through problems

together: identifying the type of problem, setting out the working, using correct

terminology and finding the final solution – ―all of the finer details‖ (S3). ―Like

being in a classroom‖ (S7), participants were able to hear the examples and processes

explained rather than just reading them (S5). The weekly routine of committing to

participating meant that the tutorial was used as a way of consolidating the learning

of material already learned in private study or as an introduction to a new topic

making it easier to then learn the material in private study (S1). The immediacy of an

online synchronous tutorial meant that participants were able to ―to bounce ideas

around with the tutor‖ (S2), ―being able to talk about it‖ (S9) and found it ―beneficial

to see problems worked out live and be able to ask questions for immediate

feedback‖ (S1). Being able to ask questions in the moment and ―physically doing

questions‖ facilitated the learning (S2, S4, S8 and S9), ―reading it is one thing but

seeing it worked out on a whiteboard gives you an extra element of learning‖ (S8).

As S2 explained it, ―I think I would have found it a lot more difficult to realise that I

was having problems if I had actually just got on the discussion list and actually just

entered something there.‖ Interacting with the content in a supported environment

such as the online tutorial, where tutor and participants were willing to share their

questions, concerns and explanations, was perceived as beneficial to the learning

process.

59

As a bonus to the online interaction, participants had access to recordings

(archives) of the online tutorials. While all participants acknowledged the usefulness

of this resource, they were not viewed by all. Lack of time was a contributing factor.

Archives were considered to be useful for catching up on the content covered in the

tutorials that were missed, particularly in preparation for the tutorial that followed.

They were also seen as a useful resource to review what was said and to pick up on

things that may have been missed, ―good to listen over and over until you got a

concept‖ (S5) or when technical issues were experienced and Internet connection

was lost during the tutorial (S8 and S1). The recording could be stopped and started

at will and replayed as necessary (S3), with only the relevant parts being replayed

(S4). As participants joined the tutorial from their homes, distractions from family

members happened from time to time. The archives allowed participants to fill in the

gaps in the discussion that occurred for them, thus not disrupting the flow for the

others. At times the pace of the tutorial was a bit fast for some (S3, S7 and S8). The

archives provided the additional resource to make sense of everything that was

discussed in the tutorial.

4.2.4 Using the Wimba Classroom

Three of the participants (S4, S5 and S8) had used Wimba Classroom in other

courses, but the remaining five had no experience of this online learning platform.

However, one participant (S6) had used other videoconferencing software in her

workplace. While most participants felt reasonably comfortable with the Wimba

Classroom environment, technical issues did occur from time to time, but these could

mainly be explained in terms of Internet connectivity and speed. However, for some

it did take a few sessions to become familiar with the functionality ―not used to

speaking online but just a matter of practice‖ (S7). Even with this practice, one

participant still found it a little daunting (S8). In addition to this, it was noted that

some aspects of functionality could be improved. Some participants found using the

Talk button inconvenient (S5) as it had to be held down while talking and there was a

slight delay between clicking on the Talk button and voice being heard. Another

participant (S2) pointed to issues with the Erase function within Wimba. When the

Erase icon was clicked all annotations on the whiteboard were erased. This created

some interesting moments when early in the semester a participant unknowingly

erased all annotations on a slide and the others had to do them again. It did have a

60

positive aspect in that participants were able to self-correct and improve their

contributions. Some participants found Wimba easy to use and acknowledged that it

was very helpful to their learning style, ―I like being able to do things with other

people and to interact. It helps to reinforce things in my mind‖ (S9). A number of

participants commented that they would like to have Wimba sessions in other

courses (S1, S2, S3, S5, S6 and S7) or had good experiences of Wimba in other

courses (S4). However, S6 said that it would depend on the content topic. In

comparing a Wimba session with face-to-face classes S5 mentioned that ―it was

definitely no imposition at all and in fact if anything it was more convenient because

I sat in my pyjamas doing it.‖ S7 added that working in Wimba was ―definitely most

brilliant things ever,‖ adding that it felt like ―one-on-one straight away.‖

One aspect of interaction within Wimba was the dilemma of whether to use a

microphone or text chat to communicate. Attitudes to this issue varied amongst the

participants. For some there were technical issues, such as the speed of the Internet

connection and associated lag time in the voice being heard (S2) or the

inconvenience of having to hold the Talk button down while talking (S5), which

impacted this decision on which medium to use. For others it was lack of confidence

at speaking into a microphone, ―the text gives people a chance to say stuff if they‘re

a bit too shy to talk‖ (S9), but ―just a matter of practice‖ (S7). There were also

concerns about background noise in individual households when using the

microphone (S4). While each participant had their own preference, all participants

used a mixture of both. Most found that a mix of both text chat and microphone

happening simultaneously added to the dynamics of the online tutorial, ―while

someone is speaking someone else can actually be writing something‖ (S6).

However, for some this was a bit off-putting as it was difficult to keep up with the

pace of the conversation at times (S3 and S8). Occasionally there were issues with

two people speaking on microphones at the same time ―bit hard if two trying to speak

at the same time‖ (S5). Use of the Hand-up icon minimised this possibility,

particularly ―because we don‘t have any social cues‖ (S2). Using text chat meant that

participants could add to a conversation without interrupting the person speaking on

the microphone (S2). However, one participant (S9) commented on the more

personal nature of using the microphone, ―feel like I am getting to know people a bit

more.‖ In all, most participants did use both text chat and microphone as it suited.

61

4.2.5 Other interaction opportunities

Participants were asked if they had used the connection to others that had been

fostered in the online tutorial to arrange to communicate outside the tutorial. There

was only one instance of communication between research study participants outside

the tutorial. Participants S6 and S1 met face-to-face when S1 was passing through

the town where S6 lived. A number of participants commented that they would have

liked to have made contact with others. S2 had tried to form a study group with

others studying the course, not necessarily research study participants, but without

success. Another participant (S9) was in text chat contact with another student in the

course who she knew from studying other courses together. S5 suggested that it

would be useful to have a Wimba Classroom set up for students to meet with other

students online for informal conversation about the course content. Two participants

(S6 and S8) said that they would have liked to meet and talk with others, but S6

simply did not have the time, while S8 saw no need in this instance as she already

met with another student, not a research study participant, ―her study buddy,‖ face-

to-face. S7 felt that he should have made the effort to be in contact with others

outside the tutorial, but didn‘t. S3 saw no need in meeting with other students outside

the tutorial, as she believed that she had enough interaction with other students

through her involvement in the online tutorials.

4.2.6 Final comments

At the end of the interview, participants were given the opportunity to comment on

anything about the online tutorial that had not been specifically asked. Most made

comments of appreciation for the support that the tutorial gave them in their studies.

However, one participant (S1) commented that the online tutorial ―makes us external

students feel valued by this support.‖ He further added that the nature of the content

meant that it was difficult to write complex questions and ideas in an email, so the

online tutorial helped in dealing with these issues. S2 observed that even though the

discussion forums have meant that students had more time to think and reflect and

find information to answer questions, the interaction in the online tutorial was fun

and students had an opportunity to ask questions for clarification. Another participant

(S3) added that interaction in the online tutorial ―makes names into people.‖ The

general feeling was that more courses should offer this type of support.

62

4.3 Summary of the survey and interview findings

With reference to the third aim of this research study this chapter examined student

perceptions of the value of the online synchronous environment to the learning of

content in a quantitative discipline context. Perceptions following participation in the

online synchronous tutorials were consistent with initial perceptions expressed before

the tutorials were conducted. Most comments related in some way to the value of the

immediacy of the interactions with the tutor and other students and the support that

this provided to the learning process.

Recordings of the online synchronous tutorials provided further data to gain a

deeper understanding of the contribution that these tutorials made to student learning.

Analysis of the content of these recordings is presented in the following two

chapters. In Chapter 5 each tutorial is described in terms of who attended, format and

content of the tutorials, interactions taking place and use of the archives. Interactions

taking place in three of the tutorials were investigated in greater detail using the lens

of the Community of Inquiry framework (introduced in Sections 2.4 and 3.2.2.3) to

provide further insights into the types of interactions and the distribution of

interactions over time (Section 5.10). In Chapter 6 the stories of four participants,

based on information obtained from the initial survey, observations from the

recordings of the tutorials and answers offered in the final interviews are presented.

63

Chapter 5: Online Synchronous Tutorials

Online synchronous tutorials were conducted each week across nine weeks of the

Southern Summer semester of 2010 (November to February) using Wimba

Classroom, an interactive online learning platform. During this particular semester,

the introductory statistics course, Data Analysis, was offered primarily in distance

mode, with a smaller cohort of face-to-face students studying at one of the

University‘s three campuses (Section 3.1). Distance-only students were enlisted into

the research project.

This chapter primarily addresses the first two aims of the study related to the

types of interactions taking place and the nature of the dialogue in the online

synchronous environment. Each tutorial is described in terms of four main aspects,

namely, who attended, format and content, interactions taking place and use made of

the archives. In addition to this, three of the tutorials, Tutorials 3, 6 and 8 were

analysed using content analysis based on the Community of Inquiry framework to

provide further insights into the types of interactions and the distribution of

interactions taking place over time within the online synchronous tutorials, with

results presented in Section 5.10.

The first tutorial (Tutorial 1) was conducted in the fourth week of the eleven-

week semester allowing time at the beginning of the semester for students to become

established in the course before being approached about participating in the research

project. Following this introductory session, weekly tutorials (Tutorials 2-8) were

conducted across the remaining seven teaching weeks of the semester. A revision

tutorial coded as R (Table 5.1) was held in the first week of the two-week

examination period, since the examination for this course was timetabled for the

second week. As all participants were located in the same time zone, negotiations on

a suitable time for the tutorial were completed quickly. It was decided to hold the

tutorials between 7 and 8 on Tuesday evenings. Prior to the first tutorial, participants

were emailed instructions on running the Wimba Setup Wizard and alternative online

contact information (Windows Live Messenger and Skype), in case there were

technical issues connecting to the designated Wimba Classroom.

64

The Wimba Classroom allowed participants to interact using audio (voice

with a microphone), text chat, virtual whiteboard and emoticons/icons. Which of

these were used more frequently by participants is investigated in Section 5.10.

While it is possible to record online tutorials in Wimba, these recordings (or

archives) only capture voice and video of the virtual whiteboard content, namely,

PowerPoint slides and any writing or typing on the whiteboard (Section 3.2.1.2).

Even though text chat takes place in the Chat window at the same time that voice and

writing on the whiteboard are occurring, Wimba records it in a separate file. To

capture the flow of the tutorial and interaction taking place, it was necessary to

obtain an integrated recording of voice, text chat and actions taking place on the

virtual whiteboard. To achieve this, the researcher logged in to the Wimba

Classroom from a second computer, so as to record the participant view of the

screen. On this second computer, all interactions (voice, text chat and whiteboard)

could be assembled in the one recording using screen capture software. Participants

were made aware that these recordings were being made. They were also given

access to the archive recordings following each tutorial. Further, these archives were

available up until the final examination.

The number of participants attending the online tutorials ranged from four in

Tutorial 7 up to the full complement of active participants (n=9) in the Revision

Tutorial (R). As researcher, participant-observer and facilitator, I generally chose the

material to be discussed in the tutorials. Nevertheless, participants were encouraged

to email questions which could then be incorporated into the content of the next

tutorial. The principal activities being undertaken in the tutorials included discussion

of key concepts and content questions, as well as social conversation and technical

assistance with working within Wimba. The type of interaction taking place, that is,

student-to-teacher, student-to-student, or student-to-content, depended on the nature

of the activity undertaken during the tutorial (Sections 2.4 and 3.2.2.2). Effective

interaction within the online synchronous environment did take some time to

establish because of the lack of visual cues.

Of the 12 students (coded as S1 to S12) who agreed to participate in the

research study, 11 took part in at least one online tutorial. Table 5.1 summarises

student participation in the online tutorials and their access to the recordings

(archives) of the tutorial sessions.

65

Table 5.1

Student participation

Student Tutorial Session # Archives watched

attended absent

S1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, R 1, 7 7, R

S2 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, R 4, 7

S3 1, 3, 6, 8, R 2, 4, 5, 7 5, 7

S4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, R 7 7

S5 1, 2, 5, 7, R 3, 4, 6, 8 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, R

S6 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, R 3

S7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, R 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, R

S8 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, R 1, 2, 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

S9 3, 8, R 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 4, 6

S10 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, R

S111 2, 3 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, R

S122 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, R

Notes to Table 5.1

1. S11 withdrew from the course prior to Tutorial 4.

2. S12 did not participate in any tutorials and subsequently withdrew from the course.

Analysis of the data will primarily include participants S1 – S9 as:

(i) S10 did not respond to any of several follow-up emails after attendance at the

first tutorial;

(ii) S11 indicated intention to withdraw from the course just after the third

tutorial; and,

(iii) S12 withdrew from the course before the online tutorials started.

66

It should be noted, that as an active participant in the online tutorials (Section 1.7),

the researcher will often use the first person to refer to her interactions with the

participants.

5.1 Tutorial 1

Tutorial 1, as an introductory tutorial, was conducted in Week 4 of the semester. Up

until this point in the semester, students should have covered topics on descriptive

statistics, including types of variables, graphical displays and numerical summaries,

and the normal model. As the first tutorial, there was a need to familiarise the

participants with the workings of Wimba Classroom and facilitate introductions to

the group. This tutorial took more than the designated one hour, lasting for

approximately 70 minutes.

5.1.1 Who attended Tutorial 1

Seven participants attended the first tutorial – S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7 and S10. One

study participant, S1, had emailed an apology prior to the first tutorial citing a long-

standing work commitment that could not be rescheduled. A further three, S8, S9 and

S11 did not join the study until after the first tutorial.

Four of the attendees indicated that they were studying psychology, with the

remaining three studying, biology, mathematics/statistics and business. During the

introductions, it was found that five were from the capital city and two were from

coastal centres.

5.1.2 Format and content of Tutorial 1

After orientation to the Wimba Classroom environment and introductions to the

members of the group, five multiple-choice questions were used as an icebreaker to

encourage students to think about the topic and participate in the discussion. As

researcher, participant-observer and tutorial facilitator, I chose to present these

questions using the Polling feature within Wimba. Feedback on the answers given by

participants was in the form of a summary of responses with no specific

identification of the respondents.

The five questions examined key concepts covered in the course content over

the previous few weeks namely: types of variables, appropriate use of graphs,

interpreting graphs, and numerical summaries of data. Even though all participants

answered the first two questions on types of variables correctly, I used this

67

opportunity to emphasise that this concept was pivotal to deciding how to analyse

data. This was achieved by exposition and also by asking participants to elaborate on

their thinking when they were deciding which option to choose in the multiple-

choice question.

The next two (of the five) questions were on graphing. Not everyone

answered these questions correctly, that is, only S6 and S10 had the third question

correct, with S3, S6 and S7 answering the fourth correctly. The final question on

numerical summaries was answered correctly by only one participant (S4).

When questions were answered incorrectly by any one of the participants,

this presented an opportunity to discuss the multiple-choice options one by one and

why some distractors could be quickly eliminated as not feasible. Participants were

asked to indicate understanding by using the Tick/Cross icon in Wimba. In this

instance, all participants indicated understanding of all five questions once they had

been fully discussed. In all, answering and discussion of these five questions lasted

32 minutes.

Following the poll questions, I presented two questions that required

participants to do some numerical calculations before arriving at an answer. These

questions were displayed on the virtual whiteboard which allowed participants to

write collaboratively on the screen. The first question was a multiple-choice question

which could be answered once the median of a dataset was calculated (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. Participants indicating answers on the virtual whiteboard

68

Everyone was asked to work out an answer to the problem presented in

Figure 5.1, but only four (of seven) participants initially indicated a response. In

Wimba, it is not possible to distinguish who is doing the writing on the virtual

whiteboard. Two of the participants chose the strongest distractor as the answer.

From this, it was a natural progression to lead the group through the steps required to

work out the correct answer and consider why the distractor was an attractive

response.

The second of these questions applied z-scores to a contextual question. This

required participants to understand the context, select the appropriate method and

calculate the z-scores for comparison. Again, participants were encouraged to

contribute to the solution on the whiteboard (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2. Writing on virtual whiteboard using tablet technology

One student typed the answer on the whiteboard with no reference to

working, so I acknowledged the participant‘s contribution, but then led the students

through the steps to the solution, including writing the numerical calculations on the

whiteboard using the capabilities of my tablet PC rather than just describing them.

These two questions took approximately 10 minutes to complete. I had an additional

normal distribution question prepared for the tutorial, but decided that I would keep

that for the next tutorial and, alternatively, elected to finish the tutorial by the

collaborative development of a table of graphical and numerical summaries of data.

The final activity in Tutorial 1 started with an empty table on the whiteboard.

Row and column headings indicated what type of information needed to be added to

69

the table, that is, the rows indicating graphical or statistical summaries and the

columns indicating the type of variable (categorical or quantitative).

Instead of asking generally for assistance with working through the activity, I

asked specific people to insert specific information where appropriate, for example,

S7 was asked to place pie graph into the appropriate cell of the table (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3. Development of table of graphical and statistical summaries

This activity took somewhat longer than expected as we had a few issues due

to limited functionality in Wimba, for example, clicking on the Erase button removed

all writing on the slide not just the writing of one person (Section 4.2.4). Once the

information about graphs was entered into the table, discussion followed, for

example, when it was better to select a particular type of graph over another. Because

the tutorial was running past the designated one hour, I decided to postpone

completion of this activity until the next tutorial.

Some brief discussion and organisation around future topics, availability of

recordings, provision of tutorials during the festive season and specific planning for

the next week‘s tutorial followed. In conclusion, everyone contributed some form of

thank you and good night.

5.1.3 Interactions in Tutorial 1

During the first few minutes of the tutorial, participants were given an opportunity to

try the interaction features within Wimba. They were asked to write or type their

name and geographical location on the whiteboard. Everyone participated in this

student-to-group and student-to-content interaction, however, S7 had some initial

70

technical difficulties and S4 typed into the Chat window instead. Participants tested

the emoticons (Tick/Cross, Smiley-face, Clapping, Hand-up) and some tried using a

microphone to communicate during this initial period. I had recommended that they

purchase a headset with built-in microphone emphasising that it was useful but not

essential to do so. Since everyone had microphone capability, I asked them, in turn

around the group, to introduce themselves by telling us what degree they were

studying and indicate any topics they would like covered.

Despite using the microphone without difficulty, most participants used text

chat as their primary means of communication throughout Tutorial 1. This allowed

more than one student to answer a particular question. As the text chat response does

not appear until the Send button is clicked, students were formulating and sending

responses in quick succession before reading the responses of others. Early in this

tutorial, I realised that I would need to have a list of participants on a piece of paper

beside me as the Participant Window in Wimba was not large enough to

accommodate the full list of participants being visible at the one time. However,

when participants used the Hand-up icon to indicate that they wanted to use the

microphone, their name would appear at the top of the list in the Participant Window

until they finished talking. To use the microphone, participants were required to click

and hold down the Talk button in Wimba. They had to consciously remember to do

this to be heard. If they did not wait a couple of seconds after clicking the Talk

button before speaking, their first few words were lost. This made using the

microphone a little less straightforward. Because of these issues, I decided to lock

my Talk button in the On position. It was not practical to have everyone lock their

Talk buttons as this led to electronic interference and background noise.

For the multiple-choice questions in this tutorial, using the Poll function

within Wimba allowed me to track how many had contributed an answer. I allowed

time for everyone to submit an answer and expressed an expectation that all would

do so. The responses were displayed in a summarised form with no way to identify

who selected which response. When a variety of responses were given, this led to

discussion of the choices. When asked to elaborate on their thinking, most of the

participants contributed responses using text chat rather than the microphone,

although S2, S4 and S5 occasionally used the microphone. In this tutorial, the

participants generally only used the microphone when a question was directed to

71

them in particular whereas I used the microphone throughout (teacher-to-student

interaction). When encouraged to use the microphone more, one participant (S5)

commented ―we are all shy,‖ while another (S4) pointed out that she had her very

young child with her and that his noise might be distracting. However, participants

did turn to the microphone when they wanted to ask a question that was too complex

to type in text chat quickly. While all participants contributed answers to the

multiple-choice questions and to the Tick/Cross confirmation of understanding, four

of the participants (S2, S4, S5, and S6) tended to be the most involved in the

conversation (both in text chat and microphone, as indicated by the number of

contributions made to discussion), whereas contributions made by the other three

participants (S3, S7 and S10) were more measured.

For the remainder of the tutorial (as noted in Section 5.1.2), we worked on

problems and a summary table on the virtual whiteboard. For these more complex

questions, participants interacted with the content both: (a) overtly by writing on the

virtual whiteboard (underlining keywords in the question and typing information

onto the whiteboard); and, (b) not openly apparent or privately, that is, by doing

calculations with calculator, pen and paper beside them at their computers (student-

to-content interaction).

Social interaction occurred occasionally during the course of the tutorial.

Early in the tutorial, two participants (S6 and S10) communicated student-to-student

in text chat to determine where each was geographically located. This was the only

instance of a participant ―talking‖ directly to another participant. Generally, social

comments were used to lighten the moment, a bit like an aside that a person might

make behind their hand to the person sitting next to them in a ―real‖ classroom. Of

course, these comments were made to the whole group as they were made in the Chat

window. Unintentional incorrect use of the Wimba functionality led to a bit of social

relief from intense concentration on the development of the content, when one

participant clicked on the Erase button and deleted everyone‘s contributions on the

whiteboard. It was not initially obvious that the Erase button deleted all

contributions, not just the last contribution. She was very apologetic, but it actually

gave participants an opportunity to self-correct when I asked them to re-enter

contributions. Comments such as ―Darn, got that one wrong,‖ ―Oh, that‘s right …

72

woops‖ and ―Kool, got it!‖ helped to lighten the intensity of the discussion and made

participants seem more real to one another.

Interaction in this tutorial was primarily teacher-driven. While comments

from participants were directed to the teacher, they were, in practical terms, made to

the whole group. Very little student-to-student interaction occurred.

5.1.4 Use of the Tutorial 1 archive

The link to the archive was emailed to all study participants (S1-S12) not just those

who had attended the tutorial. A report within Wimba was obtained to ascertain who

had accessed the archive and when it was viewed. Two participants, S7 (who had

attended) and S8 (who had not attended), used the archive of this tutorial 2-3 weeks

after the tutorial and then again a few weeks prior to the examination.

5.2 Tutorial 2

The second tutorial, Tutorial 2, was conducted in Week 5 of the semester. Although

the first tutorial (Tutorial 1) had been concerned with orientation to the format of the

tutorials and the features of Wimba, there was a need to repeat some of this for the

two first-timers, S1 and S11. One of the new attendees was studying psychology,

while the other was studying mathematics. One was located in a nearby non-coastal

regional centre while the other was in the capital city. Again, this tutorial took more

than the designated one hour, lasting for approximately 75 minutes. In addition, there

was some social interaction and testing of technology amongst the early arrivals

during the 10 minutes prior to the start of the tutorial.


Seven participants attended the second tutorial, namely, S1, S2, S4, S5, S6, S7 and

S11. Four participants (S1, S2, S5 and S7) entered the room early with three (S1, S2

and S5) posting greetings in the Chat window. I had placed a ―Welcome to Data

Analysis‖ message on the virtual whiteboard prior to the session so that participants

would know that they were in the right place. Following greetings from the early

arrivals, I also typed a greeting in text chat so that participants would be reassured

that we would be starting the tutorial on time. Two more participants, S6 and S11,

arrived during this waiting period and posted greetings to the other participants. One

participant, S4, arrived late due to a mix-up with links to the Wimba Classroom.

73

Of the remaining participants, S3 sent an apology due to uncertain Internet

access while travelling interstate, S8 had indicated prior to entering into the study

that she would not be able to attend this tutorial and S9 did not enter the study until

after this tutorial. As indicated earlier in the introduction to this chapter, S10 did not

respond to any of several follow-up emails after attendance at the first tutorial and

will not be included in any further discussion of findings.


Tutorial 2 started in earnest with a formal spoken welcome followed by a quick

―technology check‖ and introductions from the two new attendees, S1 and S11. This

revealed that S11 did not have access to a microphone. I assured her that

communication using text chat was acceptable and that she would not be

disadvantaged by not having a microphone. A brief question and answer segment

using the Poll function within Wimba was used to obtain information from

participants related to the research questions of the study (Section 5.2.2.1) including

feedback on material related to the previous week‘s course content (Tutorial 1).

5.2.2.1 Reflection on Tutorial 1

The research poll questions started with a simple icebreaker followed by multiple-

choice questions related to attitudes to the level of the content covered in the

previous week and perceptions of the online environment; and an open-ended

question identifying the most important thing that was gained from the previous

week‘s tutorial (see Section 3.2.1.3 and Appendix B for details). All of those present

who had attended the previous tutorial indicated positive attitudes to the material

covered in the previous week with responses such as ―just right‖ (S5 and S7),

―nothing new but helpful‖ (S2), and ―thought provoking‖ (S6). All participants

indicated that they were comfortable with the online environment. Most participants

(S2, S5 and S7) indicated a particular content topic as the most important thing

gained from the previous week‘s tutorial with graphing and types of variables

predominating. However, one participant (S6) indicated that it made her realise that

she was already behind in the work and that it gave her the incentive to catch up.

After each question, I displayed the summary of the anonymous results on the screen

emphasising the importance of being completely honest as their answers were an

essential component of the research study. This segment lasted approximately 10

minutes.

74

5.2.2.2 Tutorial 2 content

The course content covered in Tutorial 2 comprised contingency tables including

joint, marginal and conditional distributions, and applications of the normal model.

Prior to this tutorial, I emailed information about the questions we were to discuss to

all participants. The question on contingency tables used one data set to cover most

aspects of descriptive statistics for examining the relationship between two

categorical variables. Participants contributed to the calculation of row and column

totals, used the table to find specific percentages related to joint, marginal and

condition distributions and used conditional distributions to discuss whether the

information in the table indicated that the variables were related. I used

question/answer facilitation techniques to ―tease out‖ the key concepts that needed to

be covered to answer this type of question. During the discussion, I seized on

opportunities as they presented to discuss statistical jargon and compared it with

everyday language. Describing conditional distributions and using them to answer

related questions were problematic at first, but, with practice, the participants

improved in expressing their observations in appropriate statistical language. This

part of the discussion continued for approximately 40 minutes.

From there, we moved on to discuss the normal model question that we did

not have time to complete in Tutorial 1. This was a typical normal model question

that involved a variable that followed a normal distribution and required finding the

proportion of values in a particular part of the distribution (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4. Using diagrams to explain concepts

75

For this we looked at a normal curve representing the particular context, related it to

the standard normal curve by calculating a z-score and then used the standard normal

table to find the required proportion. We did not have time to discuss the

complement to this, where we were given a proportion and had to find the value of

the variable that corresponded. This question was held over until the following week.

Discussion of this question lasted about 18 minutes.

Again, the final four minutes allowed time for general organisational issues:

questions about archives, plans for the following week, making a start on the

assignment and final farewells.


Prior to the start of Tutorial 2, the text chat provided a useful means to communicate

with participants as they entered the Wimba Classroom at a variety of times. Wimba

polling was used to elicit feedback related to the research questions. An icebreaker

question was used to instigate involvement early in the tutorial and make participants

comfortable with answering questions using the Poll function. During this part of the

tutorial, most students used text chat rather than the microphone to communicate

even though all but one (S11) had microphone capability and I encouraged them to

use the microphone. Apart from a few social comments, most of the interaction at

this time was student-to-teacher and teacher-to-student related to technical issues.

The content questions were presented on the virtual whiteboard as it was

necessary for participants to do some calculations and share their results with the

group. Working through the questions required direction from me in the form of

question and answer facilitation (teacher-to-group interaction), leading the

participants step-by-step through the process. Most participants, with the exception

of S7, were actively involved in answering questions, asking questions and entering

relevant information on the whiteboard. Interactions took place using a combination

of microphone and text chat, mostly with me on the microphone and participants

using the text chat. However, as the tutorial progressed, some participants (S1, S2

and S6 in particular) used the microphone more often, especially if a question or

answer was more complex to communicate such as when S1 described how to find a

conditional distribution.

76

Participants interacted with the content by calculating answers to specific

questions and presenting answers on the whiteboard or in the Chat window. Using

the whiteboard or text chat rather than using the microphone gave everyone an

opportunity to contribute an answer spontaneously, without interruption. Because of

the difficulty of the concepts being studied and the wording needed to communicate

those concepts, the teacher-to-group interactions were primarily content-driven. This

was then followed by student-to-teacher interaction which, by virtue of the

technology, could be interpreted as student-to-group as well. In this tutorial a major

part of the interaction was in the form of exposition by me, however some

participants (mainly S1 and S6) were comfortable with interrupting in order to clarify

points of confusion (student-to-teacher interaction). In this environment handwriting

on the whiteboard allowed me to draw diagrams which helped immeasurably with

explaining the concepts and assisting with organising their thinking (teacher-to-

content and teacher-to-group interaction).

Social interaction occurred briefly at the beginning as participants greeted the

group and then again at the end as participants said thank you and goodbye. This

type of interaction only occurred using text chat. In short, the complexity of the

concepts being discussed dictated that the interactions in Tutorial 2 were mostly

teacher-to-group.

5.2.4 Use of Tutorial 2 archive

As for Tutorial 1, the link to the archive was emailed to all study participants not just

those who had attended the tutorial. Similarly, as for Tutorial 1, S7 (who had

attended) and S8 (who had not attended), accessed the archive of this tutorial 2-3

weeks after the tutorial and then again a few weeks prior to the examination.

5.3 Tutorial 3

The third tutorial, Tutorial 3, was conducted in Week 6 of the semester which

coincided with Christmas week. By this stage, most participants were comfortable

with the technology, although some were still experiencing some issues with Internet

connectivity. So as to be ready to start the tutorial on time, I set up the second

computer for the research recording (as noted previously in this chapter) and

uploaded the PowerPoint slides about 10 minutes prior to the advertised starting

time. I also typed ―Welcome to Data Analysis, I will be with you soon ‖ on the

77

whiteboard so that participants would know that I was there but would not be

tempted to ask questions too early for them to be recorded in the archive. Yet again,

this tutorial took more than the designated one hour lasting for approximately 75

minutes.


Despite commitments around Christmas, eight participants attended the third tutorial

(S1, S2, S3, S4, S7, S8, S9 and S11). Two participants (S5 and S6) had apologised

prior to the tutorial with S5 unable to attend due to work commitments and S6 due to

Internet connection issues while moving house. Two participants (S1 and S2) had

entered the room early and were soon joined by S7. After a further five minutes, S9

joined the group for her first tutorial. I had a brief text chat conversation with S9 to

check if the technical issues she experienced when trying to join earlier tutorials had

been resolved.

I started proceedings with ―Hi everyone‖ and a special welcome to S9. In the

meantime, S1 had exited and re-entered the room due to technical issues with audio.

S9 also experienced sound issues, so I suggested that she exit and re-enter to see if

that fixed the problem. While this was happening, S3 entered the room. The

remaining three participants joined the tutorial after the start; S4 part way through the

research poll questions; S8 during discussion of the fourth content slide and S11

towards the end of the tutorial when there was less than ten minutes remaining.

Approximately 10 minutes after exiting the Wimba Classroom, I had an email

exchange with S9 where she commented that she could not get back into the room

and needed to follow up on an error message that recommended she contact Wimba

support. She indicated that she would try to get it sorted out during the week and join

the group in the next tutorial.


After a quick sound check, I started the tutorial with a number of research questions

relevant to the study. This was followed by discussion of material related to the

previous week‘s course content according the course schedule.


As in the previous tutorial, the research poll questions started with a simple

icebreaker followed by multiple-choice questions related to key questions including

78

attitude to the level of the content covered in the previous week and how they were

feeling about the course at this point in time, and an open-ended question identifying

the most important thing gained from the previous week‘s tutorial (see Section

3.2.1.3 and Appendix B for details). All of those present who had attended the

previous tutorial (Tutorial 2) indicated positive attitudes to the material covered in

the previous week with responses such as ―just right‖ (S1, S2 and S7) and ―nothing

new but helpful‖ (S2). However, participants also described it as ―thought

provoking‖ (S4 and S7). Two participants (S2 and S7) indicated a particular content

topic, namely, distributions, as the most important thing gained from the previous

week‘s tutorial. Reassuringly, two participants indicated that ―I wasn‘t as far behind

as I thought I was‖ (S1) and ―…clarification of some questions. Hopefully am

getting there and switching on!!‖ (S4). With reference to their feelings about the

course, four out of five chose ―getting on top of it‖ (S1, S3, S4 and S7). The

Mathematics students (S1 and S2) both chose ―enjoying it.‖ None of the negative

options were chosen. As before, after each question, I displayed and discussed,

where necessary, the summary of the results on the screen. To fill in the time while

waiting for answers to be submitted, I discussed organisational issues and overall

course structure, that is, how topics fitted together. This segment lasted



The course content covered in this tutorial included discussion questions, SPSS

(statistical software) output and multiple-choice questions relevant to regression and

correlation. Prior to the tutorial, I emailed the discussion question and associated

SPSS data file to all participants. The first question presented a scenario and data that

required analysis using regression and correlation (Figure 5.5). To add structure to

the discussion, I asked questions related to the most important words in the question

to highlight key concepts and understanding of the terminology that needed to be

used.

After initial discussion about the context of the question which yielded the variables

of interest and identified dependent and independent variables, we worked through

the analysis looking at the data in SPSS, the scatterplot of the data, outliers, the

equation of the line of best fit, residuals and residual plot, coefficient of

determination, correlation, lurking variables and interpretation of the corresponding

79

SPSS output (Figure 5.5). Discussion of this question set the scene for working

through the multiple-choice questions as we had reviewed key concepts of the topic

ready to test understanding. This part of the tutorial lasted for about 45 minutes.

Figure 5.5. Interpreting SPSS output

Working through the multiple-choice questions presented opportunities for

clearing up misunderstandings and reinforcing concepts that were already

understood. Participants were given an opportunity to select an answer and then

justify their choice. The six multiple-choice questions were chosen to emphasise the

distinction between explanatory and response variables, quantitative variables,

prediction using the regression equation, the need for the relationship to be linear,

direction of the relationship and interpretation of correlation. Since the final

examination was to include 20 multiple-choice questions, this was an ideal time to

discuss examination technique in relation to this type of question, for example,

underlining keywords and reducing choices by eliminating more obvious incorrect

answers. These questions took approximately 15 minutes to complete.

In the final five minutes of the tutorial, some specific questions that had not

been resolved earlier were answered, plans for the following week were discussed,

Christmas wishes expressed and the usual farewells typed into the Chat window.


While working through the research questions at the beginning of the tutorial, only

minimal interaction took place. The extent of the interaction was: (i) student-to-

80

content in dealing with answering questions using the Poll function; and, (ii) teacher-

to-group in talking about the structure of the course. However, when the first content

question was displayed on the whiteboard, I directed a question to the group and one

participant used the Hand-up icon to respond. Once this initiative had been taken to

ask questions and contribute ideas in this way, some of the others followed. Using

the Hand-up icon and microphone to ask questions was used to a greater extent than

in the previous two tutorials.

The context of the principal question used in this tutorial to prompt

discussion on the topic was somewhat confusing and in some ways a poor choice on

my part. However, it did have a positive impact in that it prompted participants to

become actively involved in collectively arriving at an understanding of the context

before we were able to move on to the statistical implications of the question. The

main contributors to the discussion of this question were S1, S2, S7 (using the

microphone) and S4 (using text chat); see Tables 5.2 and 5.3.

As we worked through the content slides, I used a combination of direct

instruction and question/answer facilitation to engage the students. From my

perspective, interaction took the form of teacher-to-group instruction and

questioning, teacher-to-student interaction in responding to specific questions and

teacher-to-group interaction in posing questions to the group to move the discussion

forward. Participant contributions included student-to-teacher interaction when

asking a direct question or clarifying understanding and student-to-group interaction

when offering answers to my questions to further discussion.

To encourage more interaction in this tutorial, I decided to use more multiple-

choice questions rather than predominantly open-ended questions as was the case in

Tutorial 2. With multiple-choice questions, participants could offer a response even

if they were unsure of the answer. This is in comparison to short-answer questions

which can be more confronting in that most people would want to have a reasonable

idea of the answer before committing to a response.

There were six participants in the Wimba Classroom during the multiple-

choice questions but not all contributed answers. One was having technical

difficulties and could not contribute while, of the remaining five, all contributed to

two of the six questions, four contributed to two questions and three contributed to

the remaining two questions. During this period, only three participants (S1, S2 and

81

S4) contributed to the discussion using text chat and microphone. Even though S7

had contributed to discussion in the earlier part of the tutorial, he did not contribute

to text chat nor microphone discussion during the multiple-choice questions. S3 and

S8, who was experiencing technical difficulties, contributed very little to the

discussion throughout the tutorial (Table 5.2). Towards the end of the tutorial, there

was one instance of student-to-student interaction between S1 and S2, with S1

helping S2 with an SPSS issue that I had not been able to resolve.

Tutorial 3 had less social interaction than the previous tutorials and was

somewhat disjointed because of staggered entries and exits to the Wimba Classroom.

There was some social greeting at the beginning of the tutorial and farewells at the

end of the tutorial as usual (Figure 5.13). Some people experienced difficulties with

technology so this required some teacher-to-student interaction to rectify.


As was to become a regular practice, the link to the archive was emailed to all study

participants not just those who had attended the tutorial. Three participants (S5, S7

and S8) accessed the archive of this tutorial. Two of these participants, S7 and S8,

had attended the tutorial while S5 had not. However, S5 accessed the archive prior to

the following tutorial and then again prior to Tutorial 5. Similar to the previous

week, S7 and S8 each accessed the archive a couple of weeks after the tutorial and

then again prior to the examination.

5.4 Tutorial 4

The fourth tutorial, Tutorial 4, was conducted in Week 7 of the semester. This week

was usually taken as a semester break because it fell between Christmas and New

Year and the University was closed except for essential services. However, when

asked by a participant if we would be having a tutorial, I had agreed to conduct one if

participants wanted me to do so. Most of the participants voted in favour of holding a

tutorial. This tutorial took even more time than the previous three lasting



Five participants attended the fourth tutorial (S1, S4, S6, S7 and S8). Since this

tutorial was viewed as an additional tutorial because of the time of the year, I did not

expect apologies for non-attendance as it was mutually understood that not all would

82

be able to attend. Despite this, several participants had contacted me prior to the

tutorial with an apology, namely, S3 due to an illness in the family, S5 due to illness

and S9 for non-specific reasons.

Two participants, S7 and S8, had entered the room early. I had, as usual,

posted the message ―Welcome to Data Analysis, I will be with you soon‖ on the

whiteboard. After a couple of minutes, I posted a text chat message to say ―Hello‖

and to advise that the tutorial would start in five minutes. I also asked the participants

to think about keywords related to the binomial distribution while they were waiting.

A few minutes later, S1 entered the room while I was busy communicating with S9

outside the room trying unsuccessfully to assist her with technical issues.

I started the tutorial by saying ―Hi everyone,‖ enabled all participants to write

on the whiteboard and then introduced the topic. Within five minutes of starting the

tutorial, the remaining participants, S4 and S6, arrived in quick succession.


The format for this tutorial was not completely consistent with previous tutorials.

While waiting for more participants to arrive, I asked those already present to write

keywords on the whiteboard related to the binomial model which was the main topic

for the session. Following a sound check, S4 entered the room and we continued

discussing the SPIN acronym (Success, Probability of success, Independence,

Number of trials) and how it assisted in determining when the binomial model was

appropriate. Once the final participant for this tutorial (S6) entered the room, we

moved on to the regular research poll questions.


The icebreaker question for this week referred to New Year‘s resolutions since this

time was fast approaching. The key research questions covering the level of content

and most important skill or knowledge gained from the previous tutorial were posed

(Appendix B). The four participants who had attended the previous tutorial indicated

that the content was ―just right‖ (S1, S4, S7 and S8) with three adding that it was

―thought provoking‖ (S1, S4 and S8) and one noting that there was ―nothing new but

helpful‖ (S1). Again, there were two aspects to responses about the most important

understandings gained. Two participants commented on specific content, namely:

―more experience working with scatterplot and R0 and R1 values from SPSS output‖

83

(S1) and ―regression and correlation and unstandardised residuals‖ (S7). The other

two participants commented on less tangible things such as ―reassurance about what

I have been studying‖ (S8) and ―got me back on track again clearing some

confusion‖ (S4). S6 had not been present at the previous tutorial.

A third research question, enquiring about which topic had been most

challenging so far, was added for the first time. The topics most often mentioned

were ―contingency tables and conditional distributions‖ which were covered in

Tutorial 2 and ―experiments, observational studies and sampling‖ which we had not

yet covered in the online tutorials. A summary of responses to each question was

displayed after each question, the final one prompting me to add that we would look

at experiments, observational studies and sampling next week. This segment lasted

for about six minutes.


Following the research questions, we returned to discussion about probability

distributions, in particular the binomial distribution. This time I did not email the

questions prior to the tutorial as they were all multiple-choice questions and I wanted

the group to share their thinking processes in working out the answers. The twelve

questions covered content which included three questions on basic probability rules.

The remaining nine questions tested knowledge on identifying binomial situations

(using the SPIN acronym), defining the binomial model parameters in specific

contexts, finding the mean and standard deviation of a binomial random variable,

calculating binomial probabilities using binomial tables and the normal

approximation to the binomial distribution (Figure 5.6). Everyone was encouraged to

do the calculations, use the tables as necessary and then to contribute an answer by

putting a mark on the whiteboard next to their choice.

From there, we discussed reasons for choices and where misconceptions

could arise. Following the discussion of each question, I used the Tick/Cross icon to

gauge understanding. Throughout the discussion, I highlighted keywords, correct use

of terminology and examination techniques. Incorrect answers were used as an

opportunity to expand the discussion beyond the direct concept being tested. In this

way participants were encouraged to ―have a go‖ even if they were unsure of the

answer to a question. These questions and associated discussion lasted for about an

hour.

84

Figure 5.6. Normal approximation to the binomial distribution

Because it had been a long session, we concluded the tutorial in the final

three minutes with some suggestions from participants for the next tutorial. The usual

farewells typed into the Chat window followed.


After the usual greetings and sound check, this tutorial started with content

discussion on terminology associated with the binomial model. Interaction was

primarily student-to-group and teacher-to-group as keywords were discussed and

elaborated. However, there was one instance of student-to-student interaction in text

chat when S4 assisted S8 with instructions on how to write text on the whiteboard.

Minimal personal interaction took place during the research questions as participants

concentrated on the content of the questions and providing answers.

Tutorial 4 consisted of working through 12 multiple-choice questions related

to probability, in particular the binomial model. This gave ample opportunity for

participants to interact with the content by indicating an option. However, only one

of the twelve questions was answered by all five participants. This may have been

because I specifically asked that everyone should contribute an answer for that

question. For the other eleven questions, four participants contributed answers to one

question, three participants contributed answers to each of five questions and two

participants contributed answers to each of the remaining five questions. Following

my lead, participants also interacted with the content by underlining keywords in the

questions. I also interacted directly with the content and indirectly with the students

85

by using electronic handwriting on the whiteboard to develop solutions and enhance

explanations using diagrams (Figure 5.6). Teacher-to-student interaction was

focussed on checking understanding of the content through the use of the Tick/Cross

icon or Smiley Face emoticon. Most student-to-group interaction came from S1 and

S6 (using text chat or microphone) and S4 (using text chat). S1 was a little slow to

contribute at the start and he admitted that he had not looked at this content prior to

the tutorial. S7 contributed occasionally (using text chat or microphone) but this

lessened as the tutorial proceeded. While S8 contributed to discussion at the

beginning of the tutorial, she stopped once work started on the multiple-choice

questions. Teacher-to-group interaction was a mixture of: (i) facilitating discussion

by asking questions to lead to the next step to solve a problem, or (ii) direct

instruction of content needed to be understood to answer a question.

There were social greetings at the beginning of the tutorial and farewells at

the end as usual. There was some further personal interaction when S6 arrived late.

There were noticeably more student-to-student interactions using text chat in this

tutorial, particularly in the form of community building comments. When S6 picked

up an error in an answer given by S1, S1 responded ―Good catch,‖ to which S6

responded ―Thanks.‖ When S4 offered a correct answer and commented ―woo hoo,‖

S1 responded by using the Clapping emoticon. Participants were also showing more

confidence within the group, for example, S6 responded to a question from me to the

group with a candid ―Got me, can‘t remember‖ and when S6 offered an incorrect

answer, S1 admitted ―that‘s what I thought.‖ These were the types of interactions

more typically associated with a face-to-face class.


Four participants (S5, S7, S8 and S9) accessed the Tutorial 4 archive. Two of these,

S7 and S8, had attended the tutorial while S5 had been unable to attend due to illness

and S9 continued to have technical issues with connecting to Wimba Classroom. The

timing of their access indicates that three (S5, S7 and S8) used the archive during the

revision period just prior to the examination whereas S9 tried to access it just prior to

the following tutorial. One participant, S7, reviewed the archive twice during the

revision period.

86

5.5 Tutorial 5

The fifth tutorial, Tutorial 5, was conducted in Week 8 of the semester, the day after

the New Year‘s public holiday. In Australia, this particular year proved to be unusual

with respect to the weather. At this point in time all localities, where participants

lived, were experiencing much higher than normal rainfall, to the extent that some

had experienced localised flooding. This topic dominated text chat conversation

amongst the participants as they arrived in the Wimba Classroom. This tutorial lasted



Seven participants attended Tutorial 5 (S1, S2, S4, S5, S6, S7 and S8). This group

included the five most regular attendees, namely S1, S2, S4, S6 and S7. One

participant, S3, was still unable to attend due to ongoing family issues while S9

continued to have technical problems which were not able to be resolved. All

participants were present in the room five minutes before the start. Because of an

error in uploading content for the tutorial, I had to exit the Wimba Classroom to

upload the correct content. During my absence, participants conversed about the

weather and flooding using text chat. Once I re-entered, there was no further delay.


Tutorial 5 started with the regular research poll questions, followed by content

questions related to experiments, observational studies and sampling. According to

the course study schedule, this material should have been covered a couple of weeks

prior to this tutorial. I had delayed this content in order to cover the oft-perceived

more difficult topic of the binomial distribution in the previous tutorial. This was

designed to give the participants more time assimilating more difficult concepts in

preparation for their second assignment. The plan for this tutorial was to also cover

material on sampling distributions, if time allowed.


As was becoming usual practice, I started the research poll questions with an

icebreaker. Appropriately, this question related to the weather, a topic that had been

dominating the social conversation. Key questions covering the level of content and

most important thing gained from the previous week‘s tutorial were the only research

questions posed in this tutorial (Appendix B). Four of the five participants who had

87

attended the previous tutorial indicated that the content was ―just right‖ (S1, S4, S6

and S7) with two also adding that it was ―thought provoking‖ (S1 and S4). The other

participant, who had been experiencing some health problems, indicated that she

thought that it was ―a bit confusing‖ but also ―thought provoking‖ (S8).

Responses to the usual question about the most important thing gained from

the previous week‘s tutorial included comments such as: ―that I needed to catch up‖

(S1), ―helpful embedding the knowledge‖ (S8), ―allowed me to tie things together

better – big picture stuff‖ (S6), and ―learn to read the questions twice or more!!‖

(S4). Two participants commented on specific content: ―using the normal to

approximate the binomial was useful‖ (S1), and ―binomial mean and standard

deviation‖ (S7). I did not publish a summary of responses to the research questions

this time because I wanted to start discussion of the content questions without delay.

During this period, there was some further social conversation about the flooding, in

particular, S1‘s chances of being able to travel north to take up new employment.

This segment lasted for about six minutes.


The course content covered in this tutorial included multiple-choice questions on

experiments, observational studies and sampling. As I had not emailed the questions

to participants prior to the tutorial, they did not have an opportunity to think about

the questions beforehand. It was not anticipated that this would be an issue as the

participants should have already covered this content in their private study.

I was hoping to complete the ten questions fairly quickly. The first two

afforded an opportunity to look for keywords, clarify terminology and discuss

definitions related to the distinction between observational studies and experiments.

As expected, a number of questions proved to be easy and straightforward and not

requiring much discussion as all responses were correct. Despite this, things changed

when participants were asked to justify their answers and explain why the other

options were not chosen. The next few questions tested knowledge of sampling

including population of interest and types of sampling.

Following this, questions on experimental design, including the statistical

concept of confounding, were posed. The final question prompted much discussion

because of unintentional poor wording. These ten questions took approximately 30

88

minutes to complete leaving time for discussion of some sampling distribution

questions.

The topic of sampling distributions, in particular the distribution of the

sample mean, was reviewed using five multiple-choice questions. Some questions

involved simple definitions but others required a deeper understanding of sampling

variability. For this latter type of question, understanding was developed by

identifying keywords in the question and talking through the thinking process,

particularly consideration of the meaning of each of the options in the multiple

choices. Participants were encouraged to explain their choice and what led them to

that answer.

Questions involving mathematical calculations were treated slightly

differently. After participants had committed to an answer, the group were guided

through the steps of the calculation so they could identify where they may have made

errors (Figure 5.7). In particular, we discussed the relationship between the standard

deviation and the standard error; one aspect that seemed to be poorly understood.

Several participants enquired about the archive of the tutorial. There were actually

nine questions prepared for this topic but these five questions took almost 20 minutes

to discuss.

Figure 5.7. Guiding through the steps of the calculation

The last ten minutes of Tutorial 5 were used to reassure participants that they

were progressing well. This was necessary as it became apparent from comments

such as ―a little more practice methinks!!‖ (S2) and ―arrrggghhh‖ (S5) that this

89

tutorial had dented their confidence. I commented that we would be revisiting this

content over the next few weeks and answered lingering questions about sampling

distributions. I briefly mentioned the specific content to be covered in the next

tutorial. We also discussed the possibility of having a revision tutorial in the week

before the examination. Finally, we all wished S1 a safe journey to his new

employment and the participants typed their usual farewells into the Chat window.


Tutorial 5 evidenced a mix of student-to-content, teacher-to-content, student-to-

group, teacher-to-group, student-to-teacher, teacher-to-student, and student-to-

student interactions. With a false start to the tutorial, because of my need to leave the

Classroom to upload the correct content, some participants (S1, S4, S6 and S8) took

advantage of the opportunity to interact socially using text chat. Some of their

comments were directed to specific individuals but were mostly directed to the

group. When directing a comment or question to a specific person, the participant

generally named the person to whom the comment was directed. With the Chat

window visible to all, some comments may have been to specific individuals but in

this environment, it was not always possible to distinguish.

During the period when participants were answering the research questions

and waiting for others to lodge responses, some additional social interaction

occurred. This interaction consisted of both teacher-to-student (to S1) and student-to-

student (S2 and S6 to S1) as we expressed our well wishes on S1‘s move to new

employment in another location. Teacher-to-group interaction was needed to

encourage everyone to answer these questions promptly.

Interaction with content included working as a group on ten multiple-choice

questions on the topic of experiments, observational studies and sampling. Similar to

the previous tutorial, this required participants to visibly interact with the content by

indicating their favoured option in a multiple-choice question on the virtual

whiteboard. Not all participants indicated responses on the whiteboard. For the first

five questions between three and five of the six participants contributed responses.

However, the remaining five questions prompted much discussion resulting in a full

response rate by the last question. As previously noted, the technology did not

provide information on who was writing on the whiteboard so it was not possible to

determine who was not contributing a response.

90

Interaction with content also included working as a group on five multiple-

choice questions on the topic of sampling distributions. In general, there was a drop

in the number of responses observed on the whiteboard compared with the full

response rate observed in the last question of the earlier topic. This was not

unexpected due to the higher level of difficulty of this topic.

The last question in this topic required a number of steps and some

calculation to complete. Through facilitation, this prompted more contributions from

the participants thus actively engaging everyone in the group. By drawing a normal

distribution diagram and writing the calculations on the virtual whiteboard, this

question gave me an opportunity to demonstrate a step-by-step problem-solving

strategy to develop the answer (Figure 5.7). The complexity of this topic also gave

participants many opportunities to add to the discussion. As a result, there was

considerable student-to-group interaction. This was supported as necessary by

teacher-to-group interaction when I explained the more difficult concepts. At times, I

asked specific participants to expand on comments that they had made in the Chat

window (teacher-to-student). Usually they used the microphone to do this as it was

quicker for lengthier elaborations (student-to-teacher interaction, but with the group

benefitting from the explanations given). There was noticeably more use of the

microphone in this tutorial with all but one participant (S5) using the microphone at

least once during the tutorial.

Throughout the tutorial, my interaction was a mixture of teacher-to-student,

that is, with an individual, and teacher-to-students, that is, with the majority of my

comments, explanations and questions being purposely directed to the whole group.

With no visual cues, when I asked a question of or supplied an explanation to a

specific student, it was necessary to address them by name. In particular, teacher-to-

student interaction occurred whenever a specific student was asked to elaborate on

their response to a multiple-choice question. The elaboration of their response was

generally directed towards the teacher but the whole group benefitted from it. Further

to this, student-to-teacher interaction involved asking questions to clarify

understanding as the discussion of a multiple-choice question progressed. The

answer to any individual student‘s question was directed from teacher to that student

but, again, the whole group benefitted from the explanation.

91

During this question-answer interaction, the microphone was the main means

of communication. When specific participants were directly asked questions, they

responded using the microphone. However, other participants would also comment

in the Chat window in quick succession to add to that participant‘s response. When

using the microphone to ask a question, participants were now in the habit of using

the Hand-up icon so as not to interrupt the flow of the conversation.

While the questions on the whiteboard were the motivators of any interaction,

the facilitation role of the teacher was necessary to move the discussion forward and

clarify points that were obstructing progress. In the facilitator role, I provided the

content that prompted the discussion. I interacted with the content by modelling the

problem-solving strategies required and I confirmed student understanding

throughout the discussion of the key concepts required to formulate an answer to a

question. In modelling problem-solving processes, I encouraged students to underline

keywords, but they were slow on the uptake of this strategy at this point in time.

There were three main types of distinguishable student-to-student interaction

in this tutorial.

The first involved comments used to support a specific answer given by another

student, for example, when S6 said ―Good point S2,‖ referring to a pertinent

comment made by S2 in the discussion of a question.

The second type of student-to-student interaction occurred when one offered

emotional support to another. S4 prefaced a question directed to me with ―I hope

this isn‘t a silly question‖ and S6 responded ―no such thing as a silly q‘n S4‖ in

the Chat window while I was responding to the question.

The third type of student-to-student interaction occurred at the end of the tutorial

when S2, S4, S6 and S7 posted specific well wishes to S1 on his upcoming move

to a new town made challenging given the flooding occurring across the country

at that point in time. Comments included ―Pack your floaties, S1!‖ ―Take a GPS,

S1,‖ and ―Be careful, be safe!‖ to which he responded ―Yep, gonna convert the

Kia to a Duck.‖

S1, S2, S4, S5, S6 contributed most throughout discussion. S7 and S8 contributed

towards the end of the tutorial.

92


Four participants (S3, S5, S7 and S8) accessed the archive, with S7 reviewing it

twice. One of the participants, S3, had not attended the tutorial due to ongoing family

issues. The timing of access indicates that in all cases the archive was reviewed

during the revision period just prior to the examination.

5.6 Tutorial 6

The sixth tutorial, Tutorial 6, was conducted in Week 9 of the semester, the day after

an unprecedented flood event occurred in our region. All participants in the study

were affected to some extent. I sent an email on the evening of the flood event to

inform participants that I would conduct the tutorial the following evening provided I

had an Internet connection. Several participants responded the next day expressing

support for me, my family and my community. This was despite the fact that many of

them were facing flood concerns of their own as, in coming days, the flood waters in

our major river systems moved inevitably towards the coast and, in particular, into

the capital city. Initially, I had problems with my Internet connection but finally

succeeded just before the tutorial was due to start. It was not unexpected that the first

few minutes of the tutorial were devoted to finding out how everyone was faring.

This tutorial lasted approximately 75 minutes.


Six participants attended Tutorial 6 (S1, S2, S3, S4, S6 and S7). This was an

excellent attendance considering the circumstances. Most of those who attended were

affected by the flood, were about to be affected by the flood or had family and

friends affected by the flood. S1, who had been farewelled in Tutorial 5, was caught

in transit while moving with his family to a new town. Even though he experienced

technical problems due to an unstable Internet connection at his accommodation, he

was able to participate in most of the tutorial. Two study participants emailed an

apology for not attending: S5 was faced with a chaotic household as some of her

extended family needed to be evacuated from the flood zone and S9 had other

unspecified duties. It was assumed that S8 was facing similar difficulties as her

district was also in major flood.

93


To establish some sense of normality, I proceeded to the usual research poll

questions fairly quickly. These were followed by an introduction to hypothesis

testing using the sign test. I had intended offering some multiple-choice questions on

hypothesis testing with proportion but there was insufficient time. I also did not have

time to revisit sampling distributions, deciding instead to email answers to questions

not covered in the previous tutorial, advising participants to email me if they had any

difficulties.


The first research question (icebreaker) asked how everyone was faring in the floods.

This sparked some social conversation about the severity of the floods with S7

commenting that he was ―just putting more sand bags out the back!‖ The flood

actually reached his locality two days later. There was further conversation with S1

about his travels north. I repeated the three research questions that were asked in

Tutorial 3, checking on their attitude to the level of the content covered in the

previous tutorial, asking an open-ended question identifying the most important thing

gained from the previous week‘s tutorial and enquiring how they were feeling about

the course at this point in time (Appendix B).

Four of the five participants who had attended the previous tutorial indicated

that the content was ―just right‖ (S1, S2, S4 and S7) with three adding that it was

―thought provoking‖ (S1, S4 and S7) and the other commenting ―nothing new but

helpful‖ (S2). The fifth participant indicated that she thought that it was ―a bit

confusing‖ but also ―thought provoking‖ (S6).

Responses to the question about the most important skills or knowledge

gained from Tutorial 5 included: ―just generally helpful‖ (S2), ―that I was behind and

need to catch up‖ (S6), and ―learning to read questions properly!‖ (S4). Two

participants commented on specific content: ―brushing up on z scores‖ (S4) and

―using the different formulas for finding the SD and Mean for proportion and mean

of a sampling distribution‖ (S1). Another participant commented ―all very important‖

(S7). With reference to feelings about the course, all participants said that they were

―enjoying it,‖ with four of the six adding that they were ―getting on top of it‖ (S1,

S3, S4 and S7). Of the remaining two, one added that she was ―struggling‖ (S6) and

94

the other added ―all good‖ (S2). It should be noted that the participant who was

struggling and found it a bit confusing had indicated that she was behind in her study

because of moving house. During this time, there was further social conversation

about the impacts of the flooding. This segment lasted for about 16 minutes.


The tutorial could have moved in a number of directions from here as I had prepared

material for more than one topic. The participants took a vote and decided on the

sign test. I had not been able to email the questions prior to the tutorial so

participants came into the discussion relatively unprepared. As well as being a simple

introduction to hypothesis testing, the sign test applied previous knowledge of the

binomial distribution.

As a group, we worked through a sign test example highlighting the four

steps to a hypothesis test: developing the hypothesis statements; formulating a test

statistic; finding the p-value; and drawing a conclusion in the context of the question.

We did this informally (Figure 5.8), discussing the key concepts, and then more

formally with appropriate setting out and terminology.

Figure 5.8. Working through a sign test informally

I talked about the research process of formulating the research question and

gathering evidence to support it. From the discussion, we were able to clarify such

things as the distinction between null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis, and one-

tailed and two-tailed tests. We also looked at how to state the conclusion in

appropriate language balancing the statistical language with everyday language.

95

Calculating the test statistic drew on and tested their knowledge of the binomial

distribution. Some people had tried examples from the course study book so this

discussion also gave them an opportunity to clarify understanding in other contexts.

The discussion included level of significance, Type I error and Type II error. The

content of this topic was very dense with new concepts and terminology prompting

one participant to comment that ―[my] brain hurts but I‘m sure I‘ll be fine‖ (S6). This

question on the sign test, in all of its facets, took us 45 minutes to complete.

Again, the last ten minutes of the tutorial were used to reassure participants

that we would be revisiting these concepts and processes many times over the

coming weeks. I answered a few questions from participants wanting to confirm their

understanding. I could ―see‖ that they were all reaching saturation point with so

many new and complex ideas being discussed. It was necessary to give them time to

review what we had discussed and let the key ideas come together into coherent

thoughts. Because we did not cover as much content as I had hoped we might, I

proposed to email everyone the answers to the sampling distribution questions and

the multiple-choice questions on hypothesis testing with proportion. I requested that

participants try these multiple-choice questions in their own time, email me any

queries, and that we would look at them briefly at the beginning of the next tutorial.

Further, I recommended that we move on to hypothesis testing about a mean in the

next tutorial as we still had a considerable amount of content to cover before the end

of semester. Finally, we all implored each other to stay safe and then finished with

our usual farewells.


Interactions in Tutorial 6 consisted of a mix of student-to-content, teacher-to-content,

student-to-teacher, teacher-to-student, student-to-group, and teacher-to-group.

During the first few minutes, as students arrived in the Wimba Classroom, social

interaction using text chat was informally initiated amongst participants.

The first question in the research question segment of the tutorial was an

icebreaker which prompted discussion about the impact of the floods. This resulted

in student-to-group and teacher-to-group interaction with the occasional teacher-to-

student and student-to-student social conversation using both text chat and

microphone (Figure 5.14). This continued throughout this segment of the tutorial as

we waited for participants to lodge responses to the four research questions. In

96

particular, teacher-to-student and student-to-teacher interaction using the microphone

involved an exchange between S1 and me, referring to his unexpected attendance at

the tutorial considering that he was in transit to his new location. When he revealed

his current location, S6 saw an opportunity to arrange a face-to-face study session

with him as he was staying in her town until floodwaters subsided. Student-to-

student interaction using text chat ensued, swapping contact information and

arranging to meet.

Some group-to-teacher interaction was afforded indirectly by the technology.

Functional icons (Ticks/Crosses) were used to gauge agreement with the choice of

topic to be discussed (Table 5.6). The topic agreed upon was hypothesis testing, in

particular the sign test. While only one question was completed during the tutorial,

the topic was sufficiently complex to promote considerable discussion. This

complexity required the teacher-to-group interaction to be a mixture of facilitation

and direct instruction. Facilitation questioning elicited responses from individual

participants, using both text chat and microphone. When opting to use the

microphone, participants generally used the Hand-up icon to which I responded in

the designated order. Again, while responses from participants appeared to be

student-to-teacher interaction, it was in effect student-to-group interaction. Due to

lack of visual cues, emoticons (for example, smiling or clapping) were used by

participants during this time to break down social barriers.

Even though most participants had covered the content of this tutorial in their

private study, gaps in their understanding of key concepts soon came to light. This

required more direct instruction than had previously been required in the earlier

tutorials. During the periods of direct instruction, participants did not just sit and

listen but contributed to explanations (student-to-group interaction). Some also

contributed statements in the form of questions (student-to-teacher interaction) to

indicate they were unsure and wanted to confirm their understanding, such as when

S4 asked in text chat, ―So, is it fair to say, alt hyp = will improve the quality; null

hyp = did not improve or stayed the same?‖ Sometimes the direct instruction

required a lengthy explanation of a concept (teacher-to-group interaction). During

such instruction, participants posted questions using text chat (student-to-group

interaction), thus not interrupting the flow of my explanation on the microphone.

97

This enabled participants to immediately lodge their concerns or add to the

explanation before their thoughts could be forgotten.

Teacher-to-student interaction, that is responding specifically to individual

questions, led on to teacher-to-group interaction by facilitating the next step in the

solution to a problem or explaining a misunderstood concept in order to move the

discussion forward. A diagram was drawn on the whiteboard to assist in an

explanation (Figure 5.8). Use of keywords was discussed and students were

requested to interact with the content on the whiteboard by identifying the keywords

in the question. Further teacher-to-student interaction was required to overcome

some technical issues experienced by some participants during this tutorial.

Student-to-content interaction was visible in their contributions on the

whiteboard although it was not possible to distinguish who was contributing (Table

5.5). In addition, this type of interaction was visible as responses to questions using

text chat. However, it was also evident, yet not visible, in the calculations that the

participants needed to do on paper and in looking up tables. Student-to-group

interactions not only included their questions and responses to questions, but also

their use of the Tick/Cross icon to register their agreement with a statement made or

to confirm understanding of a concept explained. One student-to-teacher interaction

was a confirmation to the teacher that the explanation was valued when S2 used text

chat to say ―I was wondering about that.‖

While most student-to-student interaction was social in nature, there were a

couple of exchanges about content using text chat, in particular S2 with S4 and S6

with S4. For example, S2 answered a couple of questions posed by S4, while I was

using the microphone to explain another aspect of the problem to S6:

S4: Is that because we are giving it a 50/50 chance therefore need to look

at the 0.5 column, S2?

S2: Yeah I think so

S4: Add 9 and 10 together then as you said because 9 or 10?

S2: Yep

S4: Ta

98

S2: Welcome

Again, while this was a student-to-student exchange, all participants benefitted from

the comments because of the online classroom environment.


Four participants (S5, S7, S8 and S9) accessed the archive, with S7 (the only one of

these who had attended the tutorial) reviewing it twice, once prior to the seventh

tutorial and then again just prior to the examination. Two participants (S5 and S8)

accessed the archive just prior to the examination, whereas S9 accessed it for only a

few minutes just prior to the seventh tutorial.

5.7 Tutorial 7

The seventh tutorial, Tutorial 7, was conducted in Week 10 of the semester. This

coincided with the massive clean-up required after major flooding in the capital city

and nearby coastal regions where a number of the study participants lived and

worked. Flooding had been widespread in the state over that summer and all

participants in the study were still being affected in some way. This explained why

the predominant topic of social conversation at the beginning of the tutorial

continued to be about the weather, the floods and how people were coping. This

tutorial lasted approximately 80 minutes.


Four participants attended the seventh tutorial (S5, S6, S7 and S8). The low

attendance was not surprising given that everyone was still experiencing the

aftermath of the flood and accompanying power blackouts. In particular, S1, S2 and

S3 emailed their apologies on the day following the tutorial, explaining that they had

been unable to attend due to power blackouts and/or Internet connectivity issues.

Three participants (S5, S7 and S8) were already in the Wimba Classroom

when I typed onto the whiteboard ―Welcome to Data Analysis, I will be with you at

7‖. During this waiting period, S7 typed into the Chat window ―how did you all

survive the flood in Brisbane.‖ When there was no immediate response, I struck up a

conversation with S7 about his experiences during the flood. Following this, S8

described her circumstances and, after a slight technical problem, S5 joined the

conversation with a description of her circumstances. The conversation turned to

99

how everyone was progressing with their studies during which S6 entered the room.

After checking how S6 was faring in the floods, we proceeded to the tutorial proper.


The tutorial started as usual with the research questions. This was followed by

discussion on how to use the decision flow chart on hypothesis testing which I had

emailed to the participants prior to the tutorial. We also discussed the formula sheet

that would be provided in the examination. From there, we proceeded to work

through ten multiple-choice questions on hypothesis testing and confidence intervals

for proportion. It was the intention to do this quickly and move on to hypothesis

testing and confidence intervals for means, but again we had insufficient time to

discuss this content in this tutorial.


At this stage of the semester, I decided to forego the icebreaker question and progress

immediately through the key research questions: attitude to the level of the content

covered in the previous tutorial, the open-ended question identifying the most

important thing gained from the previous week‘s tutorial, how they were feeling

about the course at this point in time, and which topics they found most challenging

so far (Appendix B).

Only two of the four present had also attended the previous tutorial (Tutorial

6), so the first two questions were only answered by these two participants. While

one thought that the content was ―just right‖ (S7), the other thought that it was

―thought provoking‖ but ―a bit confusing‖ (S6). Responses to the question about the

most important understanding gained from the previous week‘s tutorial included

comments such as ―success and fail, Type 1 errors and Type 2 errors‖ (S7), and ―it

helped me sort the logic behind the sign test, but I‘m still confused about some

things‖ (S6). On feelings about the course, three of the four participants said that

they were ―enjoying it‖ (S5, S7 and S8). However, one of these added that she was

―still worried‖ and ―struggling‖ but was ―getting on top of it‖ (S5). Another also

added that she was ―still worried‖ and ―struggling‖ (S8). The fourth participant

indicated that she was ―struggling‖ but ―getting on top of it‖ (S6). As for the most

challenging topics, three of the four participants chose ―hypothesis testing and

confidence intervals‖ (S6, S7 and S8), with two adding ―sampling distributions‖ (S6

100

and S8), and the third adding ―binomial models and probability‖ (S7). The fourth

person (S5) chose ―experiments, observational studies and sampling‖ along with

―sampling distributions.‖ These choices could not be related to tutorials missed as

most of the participants had been in attendance at the tutorials where their choices

were discussed. The only exception to this was when S8 chose hypothesis testing and

confidence intervals (Tutorial 6). Because I did not display summaries of the

responses to the questions, this segment was completed in less than seven minutes.


Now that we had discussed aspects of hypothesis testing, it was an opportune time to

discuss the decision flow chart on this topic and the related topic of confidence

intervals. This allowed us to talk more about the ―bigger picture‖ of inferential

statistics to try to alleviate confusion. Students of this course were expected to do

simple hypothesis tests and confidence intervals by hand and by interpreting SPSS

output. To assist with this, students were provided with a formula sheet in the

examination. In this tutorial, we discussed this formula sheet and particular formulae

related to hypothesis testing, confidence intervals and sample size. We examined

each of the formulae in turn and I suggested key points to annotate on the sheet. This

discussion lasted for about 20 minutes.

Multiple-choice questions on hypothesis testing for proportion had been

emailed to participants immediately following the previous tutorial (Tutorial 6). I

expected that we would complete discussion of these questions fairly quickly as

participants should have had an opportunity to attempt them in their own time.

Despite this, these ten questions required approximately 45 minutes to complete.

Terminology and statistical language appeared to create a barrier to understanding.

The questions covered key concepts including population of interest, sample

statistics, test statistics, critical values, standard errors, level of confidence, margin of

error, p-values, sample size and test assumptions. In the process of discussing this

content, we practised useful problem-solving strategies such as underlining

keywords, summarising the given information, drawing a diagram, checking the

formula sheet, and eliminating obvious incorrect options.

Since we had not covered as much as I had planned, I suggested that we have

a longer than usual tutorial in the following week, so that we could look at

hypothesis testing for a mean and the chi square test. This was greeted by ―Yes

101

please‖ (S6) and ―I‘m good for a longer sess [session]!‖ (S5). I encouraged

participants to email or phone if they wanted to discuss anything from the tutorial. As

there were no further questions, we finished with our usual farewells.


Interactions in Tutorial 7 again consisted of a mix between students, content and

myself (as teacher). Social interaction at the beginning of the tutorial was initially

instigated in text chat but quickly progressed to using the microphone, as there were

only two participants (S7 and S8) present at the time. In the first instance, there was

teacher-to-student interaction as I asked each participant how they fared in the

floods. This was followed in turn by student-to-teacher interaction as each responded

by describing their situation. This continued when the third and fourth participants

(S5, returning to the classroom after experiencing technical issues; and S6) joined the

group.

During the routine research questions, interaction was kept to a minimum to

reduce the time devoted to this segment. However, there were some teacher-to-group

comments to encourage quick responses to the questions. In addition, there were

some comments from me forewarning of possible background noises during the

tutorial due to a birthday party in progress in my household at the time. S5 quickly

responded ―And you are doing a tute? Where‘s our cake??‖ This helped to lighten

the atmosphere created by the earlier conversation about the seriousness of the

floods.

Content for this tutorial consisted of discussion of the decision flow chart for

inference, formula sheet and ten multiple-choice questions on hypothesis testing and

confidence intervals for proportion. Participants had been sent a copy of the flow

chart and multiple-choice questions prior to the tutorial. Most of the interaction when

discussing how to use the flow chart was teacher-to-group with the occasional

student-to-teacher comment and consequential teacher-to-student response about the

content. As teacher, I explained the information summarised by the flow chart and

how to apply it when answering questions requiring hypothesis testing and

confidence intervals. During this discussion, teacher-to-content interaction assisted

understanding by referring to and annotating the flowchart displayed on the

whiteboard. Student-to-teacher interaction using the Tick/Cross icon confirmed

understanding. Similar interactions (teacher-to-group, student-to-teacher, teacher-to-

102

group and teacher-to-content) were observed during the discussion of the content and

function of the formula sheet. During these discussions, most of the interaction was

teacher-to-group in the form of direct instruction.

Working through the multiple-choice questions followed a similar format to

previous tutorials. Participants were encouraged to interact with the content by

underlining keywords on the whiteboard. Participant involvement in underlining of

keywords increased as the tutorial progressed. After teacher-to-group elaboration of

the context related to the keywords in the question, participants were asked to

interact with the content by indicating their favoured option on the whiteboard. The

teacher-to-group interaction included a mixture of both facilitation questions to lead

the participants through the problem-solving steps to a solution and direct instruction

exposition to clarify some of the concepts. Both of these were enhanced by teacher-

to-content interaction in the form of writing on the virtual whiteboard (Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.9. Formulae and calculations

This writing of formulae and calculations visually supported the verbal explanations.

A number of the multiple-choice questions were numerical in nature and required

participants do calculations with the aid of a calculator and look up statistical tables

in a textbook. This instigated student-to-content interaction on paper for each

individual participant in their own time. Not all participants shared the results of their

calculations. Two participants, S5 and S6, contributed the majority of the student-to-

group discussion using text chat, although S7 did contribute using both the

microphone and text chat on a couple of occasions.

103

Overall, there were very few student contributions using the microphone,

even though this would have been more manageable compared with other tutorials,

given the small number of participants attending. No direct student-to-student

interaction was observed. While social interaction occurred during the welcome and

farewell part of the tutorial, no social interaction occurred during the content part of

the tutorial.


With so many missing this tutorial and taking the content covered into consideration,

it was not surprising that five participants accessed the archive. Three who had

missed the tutorial (S2, S3 and S4) accessed the archive during the week following

the tutorial to be prepared for Tutorial 8. The remaining two (S5 and S7) had been

present at the tutorial and accessed the archive during the revision period prior to the

examination (S5 doing so twice). When asked during the tutorial if they had been

using the archives, S5 and S7 confirmed that they did, with S5 further commenting in

text chat ―love it! It‘s great for revision.‖ One participant (S3) in an unsolicited

personal email commented ―I have to say that I really love the archive tutorials (as

well as the tutorial) because if during class the group move on while I'm mulling

something over, I can go and replay, pause, replay, pause the sections of the tutorial I

was only half listening to.‖

5.8 Tutorial 8

The eighth and final tutorial on new content was conducted in Week 11, the last

week of the semester. The two-week examination period followed and the Data

Analysis examination was timetabled to be held on the Wednesday of the second

week. I opened the Wimba Classroom early with a message on the whiteboard: ―I

will be with you in a few minutes.‖ We had decided beforehand that this tutorial was

likely to be extended as we needed to cover a considerable amount of content on

inferential statistics. As a result, this tutorial lasted approximately 125 minutes.

5.8.1 Who attended

Eight participants attended the eighth tutorial (S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S8 and S9). S5

sent an apology. She had to finish an assignment for another course and wanted to

devote her time to that task. Four participants (S2, S6, S7 and S8) were already in the

Wimba Classroom when I entered. While we waited for the others to arrive, we did a

104

sound check and I took questions from those present. In the meantime, three more

participants (S1, S3 and S4) entered the room in quick succession. The final

participant (S9) was still having technical issues and finally joined the group 20

minutes later. Another two participants (S1 and S8) also had technical issues with

seeing the content on the whiteboard during the course of the evening, with S8

deciding to leave at about 40 minutes into the session and S1 leaving after 90

minutes. S9 decided to leave early at 80 minutes into the session, but returned

approximately 20 minutes later and remained for the final 20 minutes of the session.


Once everyone was settled and initial greetings were completed, I posed the four key

research questions and finished this segment with a light-hearted question to relieve

the tension. From there we worked through a chi-square test using a combination of

calculations, multiple-choice questions and SPSS output. Following this, we

discussed six questions on confidence intervals and hypothesis testing with means.

These questions included a mix of multiple-choice questions, calculations using a

formula and calculator, and interpretation of SPSS output. Both sets of questions had

been emailed to participants prior to the tutorial.


Similar to the previous week, the four key research questions were asked: attitude to

the level of the content covered in the previous week, the open-ended question

identifying the most important thing gained from the previous week‘s tutorial, how

they were feeling about the course at this point in time and which topics they found

most challenging so far (Appendix B). Because only four participants had attended

the last tutorial I invited those who had watched the archive of Tutorial 7 to

contribute answers to the research questions as well.

On the subject of content from the previous week, only three of the six who

answered chose ―just right‖ (S1, S3 and S7). One of these added that it was also

―thought provoking‖ (S7). The other three participants selected ―thought provoking‖

(S4, S6 and S8), with two of these adding that it was ―a bit confusing‖ (S6 and S8).

Both of the participants who commented that it was ―a bit confusing‖ had attended

the previous tutorial but had not reviewed the archive before this tutorial. Responses

to the question about the most important thing gained from last week‘s tutorial

105

included comments such as ―persist, persist, persist! A few things were clarified.

Good for reinforcement.‖ (S6), and ―everything!‖ (S4). Others commented on

specific content such as ―hypothesis and proportion‖ (S7), ―rules for hypothesis

testing‖ (S3), and ―differences between means and proportion stats tests, t tables, all

of it‖ (S4). On feelings about the course, six of the seven participants said that they

were ―enjoying it‖ (S1, S2, S3, S4, S7 and S8). However, four of these added that

they were ―struggling‖ (S1, S3, S4 and S8). The other participant (S6) indicated that

she was ―struggling‖ and ―still worried‖ but ―getting on top of it.‖ In all, five out of

the seven felt that they were ―getting on top of it‖ (S3, S4, S6, S7 and S8). S9 did not

contribute to these questions as she arrived late.

With reference to the most challenging topics, six of the seven participants

chose ―hypothesis testing and confidence intervals‖ (S1, S3, S4, S6, S7 and S8), with

two adding ―binomial models and probability‖ (S4 and S7), and one adding

―regression and correlation‖ (S3). The other participant (S2) had found that ―nothing

has been particularly challenging so far,‖ but if he had to pick any it would be

―sampling distributions.‖

Instead of having the icebreaker at the beginning, I chose to finish with a

light-hearted moment by asking: ―What are you going to do when the exam is over?‖

Five out of the seven chose ―feel a sense of achievement‖ (S1, S2, S3, S4 and S7),

whereas the other two chose ―take a holiday‖ and ―get some sleep‖ (S6 and S8).

Because I did not display summaries of the responses to the questions, this segment

was completed in a little over five minutes.


Even though the chi-square test was the last topic in the course, I decided to work

through it first in case we did not have sufficient time to complete everything on the

agenda for this tutorial. I referred back to Tutorial 2 where we had first talked about

contingency tables and quickly summarised the important points so far. From there,

we worked on a chi-square scenario, initially with multiple-choice questions on

calculating expected counts and degrees of freedom. We proceeded to calculate all of

the expected counts for the table, with all participants contributing. We discussed the

hypothesis statements, calculated the chi-square statistic, degrees of freedom, p -

value and conclusion in context. Finally, we discussed the SPSS output of

conditional distributions and the chi-square test, relating this back to the calculations

106

we had completed earlier. We also discussed interpretation of the standardised

residuals. Again there was a lot of statistical terminology to absorb. This chi-square

scenario and all of its related analysis took approximately 50 minutes to complete.

Hypothesis testing and confidence intervals for means were discussed using

six multiple-choice questions followed by working through a hypothesis test using a

single sample test of a mean and then a two related samples t-test which included

interpreting SPSS output. The multiple-choice questions tested concepts such as

standard error, margin of error, critical value, confidence interval, test statistic and p-

value related to hypothesis testing, and confidence intervals for a mean, all of which

had been covered previously, but in a slightly different context using a proportion

instead of a mean. From there we discussed, in more detail, hypothesis testing for a

mean using a single sample, reinforcing the four steps to a hypothesis test. Included

in this was some discussion on using the t-table. In the final question we identified a

scenario as being a related-samples context (Figure 5.10), and then proceeded to do

the corresponding hypothesis test by interpreting SPSS output. Throughout

discussion of this content, we again applied problem-solving techniques such as

underlining keywords, summarising the given information, drawing a diagram and

referring to the formula sheet. This segment took another 50 minutes.

Figure 5.10. Looking for keywords

Having finished discussion of the new content I asked for an indication of

who wanted a revision tutorial using the Tick/Cross icon. With everyone present

indicating a tick, I agreed to organise a tutorial for the following week at the usual

107

time, but asked that people email me any special requests of content that they wanted

revised. With such a long session behind us, farewells were very brief finishing with

my concluding comment ―give ourselves all a pat on the back for hanging in there so

long.‖


While this tutorial included the expected interactions, there was a higher proportion

of teacher-to-group interaction which could be classified as direct instruction. With

examinations looming, there was initially minimal social interaction beyond teacher-

to-student acknowledgement of individual participants being present. However, some

technical and organisational issues needed to be addressed before progressing to

discussion of content. A sound check (teacher-to-group interaction) was facilitated

using the Tick/Cross icon. Organisational issues related to finalising the research

project interviews required teacher-to-student interactions followed by student-to-

teacher responses. Resolving technical issues required teacher-to-student and

student-to-teacher interaction using both microphone and text chat. General content

questions were addressed briefly in specific student-to-teacher interactions with

teacher-to-group responses using the microphone. While this was happening, a social

conversation between S2 and S6 unfolded in the Chat window.

Once the tutorial moved on to the research questions, some teacher-to-student

and student-to-teacher interaction on organisational issues persisted. With these

resolved, conversation subsided while participants concentrated on answering the

research questions as quickly as possible. To lighten the atmosphere, the last research

question was not a serious one. This prompted a little social interaction (student-to-

teacher, student-to-group and teacher-to-group) before proceeding to the course

content.

The discussion of course content was in two parts: a chi-square question and

some questions on hypothesis testing and confidence intervals for means. Initial

discussion of the chi-square question included teacher-to-group interaction in which I

referred back to content from an earlier tutorial and posed leading questions to

facilitate student contributions. Student-to-group interaction occurred mainly in text

chat. Using text chat allowed more than one student to respond to any one question.

Though there were eight participants present, most of the contributions came from

S1, S2, S4, S6 and S9 (Table 5.8). Student-to-content interaction was visible on the

108

whiteboard when participants entered missing values in tables of observed and

expected counts and answered multiple-choice questions. It was also assumed to be

present (but was not visible) when they drew diagrams of the chi-square distribution,

looked up statistical tables and did calculations on paper. Teacher-to-content

interaction was used to visually support explanations and demonstrate calculations

using writing on the whiteboard (Figure 5.10).

While participants were encouraged to use the microphone, they seemed to

prefer text chat as the primary means of communication (Table 5.9). If a participant

used the microphone in this part of the discussion, the Hand-up icon was also

generally used. Teacher-to-group interaction was a mix of facilitation and direct

instruction. Student-to-teacher interaction using the Tick/Cross icon to confirm

understanding of the content was regularly employed during direct instruction

throughout the tutorial (Table 5.9). As participants were still trying to assimilate the

more unfamiliar content and there were no visual cues to ascertain level of

understanding quickly, this allowed individuals to respond student-to-teacher.

Occasionally there were student-to-group interactions with comments much like a

person might say to the person next to them in a face-to-face tutorial, for example,

when S2 realised his mistake in an answer ―bugger – of course.‖ Some student-to-

teacher interactions were in the form of a comment finishing with a question mark,

that is, offering a comment but indicating that the student was unsure. One example

of this occurred when S1 posted in text chat ―it would be an equal value amongst the

choices?‖ indicating that his answer was tentative. On occasion, S4 would restate a

concept in her own words (using the microphone) to confirm that she had understood

the teacher‘s explanation.

When changing to a new topic, teacher-to-group interaction included some

general organisational points and words of encouragement. Participants were now

practising problem-solving processes that I had modelled in previous tutorials. As

each new question on hypothesis testing was displayed on the screen, participants

immediately interacted with the content by underlining keywords. Participants also

interacted with the content by doing calculations associated with an analysis and

offering answers using text chat, often in quick succession. I responded (teacher-to-

group interaction) with demonstrations of calculations on the whiteboard. Although

teacher-to-group interaction predominated, there were occasional teacher-to-student

109

responses acknowledging a student by name for their contribution. In the student-to-

group interaction, two participants, S2 and S9, were quick to respond with answers.

However, use of text chat again meant that more than one participant was able to

offer an answer to a question and check their answer against others‘ contributions.

One notable student-to-student interaction occurred in the Chat window when S2

assisted S9 with an answer to her content question.

The length of the tutorial was telling on everyone‘s abilities to concentrate, so

a few student-to-group and teacher-to-group social comments helped to break the

tension throughout the tutorial (Figure 5.15). Even though participants were

operating as individuals, comments and answers using text chat produced an

environment of collaboration and cooperation. This was evidenced by participants

being prepared to contribute to the discussion as we worked through the solutions

step-by-step.


As was expected, since she was the only participant who missed the tutorial, S5

accessed the archive. In fact, she accessed it twice in the revision period leading up

to the examination. Only one other (S7) accessed the archive in the revision period.

5.9 Revision Tutorial

Since the Data Analysis examination was timetabled in the second week of the

examination period, I offered to hold the revision tutorial in the first week.

Participants had been asked to submit requests for topics to be covered. Because this

was a revision tutorial, discussing an example examination paper, I anticipated that it

would be extended. I was prepared to stay online as long as necessary, based on

participant needs. This tutorial lasted approximately 150 minutes.

5.9.1 Who attended the revision tutorial

All nine active research study participants attended the revision tutorial (S1, S2, S3,

S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9). It should be noted that some participants had other

examinations to prepare for during this period. Four participants (S1, S7, S8 and S9)

had entered the room early. I noticed that although S9 dropped out she was able to

re-enter successfully. I greeted everyone in the Chat window and reassured that ―I

will be with you in a minute,‖ as I finished final preparations. Those present greeted

the group, after which we conducted a sound check. In the meantime, S3 entered the

110

room. While we waited for others to arrive, I took general questions from the group

and organised a time frame for conducting final interviews for the study. After S4

arrived, conversation turned to the weather and the impending cyclone hovering off

the coast. Soon after starting the research poll questions, S5 entered. The final two

participants were quite late joining the group; S6 arrived thirty minutes into the

tutorial when we were discussing the third multiple-choice content question and S1

arrived fifty-five minutes into the tutorial when we were discussing the twelfth

multiple-choice question, apologising that he had forgotten the time while bathing

the children.

5.9.2 Format and content of the revision tutorial

With everyone settled, I posed five research questions, three of which had been asked

regularly throughout the semester. From there, we worked through an example

examination paper consisting of multiple-choice questions and written responses to

questions. A copy of the example examination had been emailed to participants prior

to the tutorial.


Using the Poll function, I asked the three key research questions and two extra

questions, one of which related back to the initial survey and the other to be asked

again in the final interview after the examination. The key research questions were

about attitude to the level of the content covered in the previous week, identifying the

most important thing gained from the previous week‘s tutorial and feelings about the

course at this point in time (Appendix B). Five of the six participants present had

attended the previous tutorial (Tutorial 8). Because I wanted to obtain a full picture

of the attitudes of participants, I asked the two (S1 and S6) who arrived quite late and

missed this segment, but were present at the previous tutorial, to email me responses

to the questions. On the topic of attitude to content from the previous week (drawn

from the collated responses), three of the eight chose ―just right‖ (S2, S3 and S9).

Three participants selected ―thought provoking‖ (S4, S7 and S8), while two chose

both ―just right‖ and ―thought provoking‖ (S1 and S6). Responses to the question

about the most important thing gained from last week‘s tutorial included comments

such as ―it‘s not as difficult as I thought‖ (S3), ―learning differences between tests‖

(S4), and ―confirming that I was on the right track with chi squares tests and resids

[residuals]‖ (S9). Others commented on specific content such as ―a bit of revision of

111

contingency tables‖ (S2), ―chi square test distribution and statistical value‖ (S7), and

―very helpful as gave me insight into chi square test which I hadn‘t done at that

stage‖ (S6). On feelings about the course, seven of the nine participants said that they

were ―enjoying it‖ (S1, S2, S3, S4, S7, S8 and S9). However, four of these added that

they were ―getting on top of it‖ (S3, S4, S7 and S8), with two of these further

admitting that they were ―still struggling‖ (S4 and S8). Three participants indicated

that they were ―still worried‖ (S3, S5 and S6), with one adding that she was ―getting

on top of it‖ (S6).

The main reason for including the additional two research questions was to

compare the responses with those given in the initial survey and the final interviews

to check consistency. The first of the additional questions asked why they had chosen

to participate in the online tutorial. This question was from the initial survey before

the online tutorials commenced. Indicative responses from the group included ―I

need all the help I can get!!!‖ (S5 with S8 concurring), ―interaction with other

students and tutor as well as a guide to keeping up with the workload‖ (S3 with S9

concurring), ―to be more informed and to learn how other students study‖ (S7),

―beneficial to hear different discussions and perceptions of the material being taught‖

(S2), ―to help motivate me to keep up to date‖ (S1), ―I am so sick of playing it safe

and not making the most of opportunities – nothing like risk-taking and getting in

your discomfort zone‖ (S6), and ―feel more a part of uni as an external student‖ (S4).

The second additional question asked participants how the online tutorial

contributed to their learning. Indicative responses included:

if I had a wrong idea about something it was more likely to be brought out

during the online tutes (S2);

it helped to reinforce my learning and helped clarify concepts (S9);

… by either introducing me to a topic … or by consolidating my knowledge

on the topics (S1);

felt more in touch (S4);

practical examples have been very helpful (S8);

good sounding board esp being external (S5);

112

my learning style incorporates auditory, and visual can become very tiring

(S3);

helped in understanding the language of DA [Data Analysis] by listening to

how it was used while interacting (S6); and,

very good as I can revise with the recording tute (S7).

Because I did not display summaries of the responses to the questions, this segment

was completed in 10 minutes.

5.9.2.2 Revision Tutorial content

I had asked participants to email me any requests for topics to cover in this revision

tutorial. As I had only received one request for some discussion on probability, I

decided it would be productive to work through one of the example examinations

that were made available to all students for revision purposes. This example

examination included some questions on probability. Prior to the tutorial, I emailed

everyone a copy of the example examination paper that we would discuss. The

examination was in two parts – Part A consisting of 20 multiple-choice questions for

20 marks and Part B consisting of 5 questions (with multiple parts) requiring written

answers for 30 marks. These questions covered all aspects of the course. While

working through the multiple-choice questions, participants contributed by

underlining keywords, committing to a choice and justifying their answer when

requested to do so. Participants were also given opportunities to ask for clarification

of understanding. Responding to their questions was not just left to me, as other

participants contributed explanations and examples to assist. In working through

these questions I was able to point out some of the traps in the wording of questions,

point out commonly made errors and reinforce the need to read questions carefully.

Part A of the examination paper took us approximately one hour.

The written part of the paper was a little more difficult to structure in an

online environment. As time was short, I decided that we would concentrate on

looking for the keywords in the questions, discuss strategies for working out what a

question required (formulae required and how to go about answering), but leaving

everyone to do the calculations later in their own time. Brief answers to these

questions were available to all students, so participants would be able to check their

working and were encouraged to contact me should they have any queries or

113

concerns. Even without actually doing all of the calculations, Part B of the

examination paper took us approximately one hour to complete.

With this tutorial being such a long one, it was not surprising that a couple of

participants were not able to stay for the whole time. One participant (S9) stepped

out for twenty minutes to have something to eat, but returned and stayed for the rest

of the tutorial. Another (S5) had to leave about half an hour before the end to attend

to her children, saying ―I‘m sorry gang but I have to scoot, a 5 year old and 15 year

old argument that I have to referee, wish me luck!! ciao (and good luck with the

exams!).‖ In the last ten minutes we discussed organisational issues related to the

examination. Participants offered words of advice on their examination strategies. I

reassured those with last minute nerves and offered to assist with any last minute

questions by email. I commented that I would wait until after the examination to

contact them for their individual interviews for the research study. Finally,

participants departed with many messages of ―good luck‖ and ―thank you.‖

5.9.3 Interactions in the revision tutorial

While interaction in this tutorial consisted of the usual mix, there seemed to be a

much more even distribution of these interactions across the tutorial. With no new

content being introduced, there was less direct instruction required. There was

noticeably more student-to-student interaction than in earlier tutorials, where

participants showed their support for one another, both emotionally and intellectually

such as when S6 commented ―good work S2‖ in response to an answer given by S2

and S9 gave her advice on exam technique ―read the questions slowly!!!!‖

After teacher-to-group and teacher-to-student greetings as each person

arrived, participants were encouraged yet again to use the microphone to interact.

Even though one participant (S2) commented ―it‘s just easier to type,‖ some

participants used the microphone more and not just when they needed to give longer

more complex answers. Teacher-to-group interaction was necessary to organise

processes related to the research project interviews and the final research questions.

During the research questions segment of the tutorial, teacher-to-group social

comments filled in the quiet times as participants lodged their answers. Some

student-to-student social conversation occurred between S5 and S9 in text chat.

While this conversation was specifically between these two people, it was visible to

114

all. Some teacher-to-group social conversation about my dog going crazy in the

background prompted some student-to-group social chat about pets in general. Talk

about the impending cyclone prompted light-hearted comments (student-to-group)

about the abundance of snakes and spiders due to the floods. During this social

conversation, participants used the microphone to respond when a comment or

question was directed to them by name.

Content discussions contained two overall components: multiple-choice

questions from Part A of the example examination and short answer questions from

Part B of the examination. Teacher-to-group interactions during Part A were very

similar to previous tutorials where multiple-choice questions had been used. These

included advice on problem-solving techniques, advice on examination techniques,

questioning to facilitate student involvement in answering the questions and use of

the Tick/Cross icon to confirm understanding. This interaction was interspersed with

teacher-to-student interaction which attempted to involve participants who had not

been very active in discussion in past tutorials. This was initiated by asking specific

participants to explain the reasoning behind their answers to the multiple-choice

questions. This prompted student-to-teacher responses using the microphone rather

than text chat. In addition, other participants supported a respondent by adding

student-to-group comments in text chat to keep the discussion flowing. To reduce

any possibilities of confusion, teacher-to-group interaction facilitated the discussion

with some additional explanation expanding on understanding by modelling the

thinking processes needed to solve a problem. Some teacher-to-group direct

instruction mingled with the facilitation to highlight important concepts in the topic

being examined.

Student-to-content interaction involved underlining of keywords, crossing out

obvious distractor options (Figure 5.11) and indicating the chosen answer on the

whiteboard. However, in contrast to previous tutorials, participants joined in these

activities with very little prompting from me. As in past tutorials, teacher-to-content

interaction included drawing diagrams and doing calculations on the whiteboard.

115

Figure 5.11. Eliminating distractors

With the examination fast approaching, participants were keen to stay

focussed on the content. However, occasional student-to-group social chat, sprinkled

throughout the tutorial, helped to ease the tension. This created an atmosphere of

student-to-student mutual support which was extended to the teacher as participants

posted messages such as ―Ahh, got it‖ (S5) and ―OK, I think I have it‖ (S9) to

acknowledge that they had understood my explanation of a key concept or thinking

process. While most student-to-group discussion was again taking place in text chat,

there was more use of the microphone in this tutorial compared with past tutorials.

As in previous tutorials, short comments were generally given in text chat and longer

comments given using the microphone. However, there was one exception when S4

posted a much longer and more involved than usual comment in text chat, possibly

due to the presence of her baby in the background.

With more familiarity with the content, student-to-group interactions included

more suggestions of different ways to approach a problem and how to avoid some of

the pitfalls in the wording of questions. Where, in the past, teacher-to-group

interactions included warnings on where thinking could go awry, these were now

being offered student-to-group, such as when S4 commented ―almost went 50-50

chance‖, which was a common error in binomial questions. Student-to-group

interactions also included acknowledgments of when their thinking had been flawed,

such as when S1 commented ―Sorry, you guys are right.‖ At one stage a flurry of

student-to-group discussion on technical issues occurred using both the microphone

and text chat when I accidently unlocked the Talk button on my computer and could

not be heard for a few minutes. This episode was quickly disregarded with a comical

comment from S7 who posted ―I thought that the dog might have chewed your mic

[microphone]‖ which prompted a few ―LOL‖ comments from other participants.

116

During discussion of Part B of the examination, participants were quick to

underline keywords identifying the relevant information contained in a question.

Since the questions were short answer rather than multiple-choice, participants had to

be prepared to put forward their own ideas and not be guided by presented choices.

Participants mostly interacted student-to-group using text chat by offering

suggestions as I posed questions to uncover the key concepts that needed to be

understood to solve the problem. S1, S2, S4 and S9 were the main contributors to

this discussion with occasional contributions from the others in attendance. While

student-to-content interaction included underlining keywords in a question and

highlighting relevant information in SPSS output on the whiteboard, towards the end

of the tutorial a couple of participants even wrote relevant equations on the

whiteboard (Figure 5.12). Because of time constraints, we did not do all calculations

but rather concentrated on the method to solve each problem. Teacher-to-content

interaction, as earlier, involved writing formulae and drawing diagrams on the

whiteboard to support explanations and summarise contributions made by

participants. Teacher-to-group interaction included questioning to draw out

intermediate steps in a solution, confirming student responses as correct, clarifying

deficient thinking, and modelling the thinking processes in formulating a solution.

The Tick/Cross icon was also used to confirm understanding.

Figure 5.12. Participants contribute to writing formulae

Student-to-student interaction was used to agree with another‘s response

generally identifying the other by name. It was also evident when S1 and S4 posted

good luck messages, in text chat, to S5 when she had to leave the tutorial early.

Student-to-student interaction provided support ―Good work, S1‖ and acknowledged

an error ―Oops, yeah‖ (S2). These interactions replaced visual cues such as a smile of

support or a nod of agreement.

117

The last few minutes of the tutorial were primarily teacher-to-group words of

advice on examination preparation and techniques. However, a number of

participants added their examination preparation suggestions as well. The tutorial

concluded with well wishes all-round.

5.9.4 Use of the revision tutorial archive

Three participants (S1, S5 and S7) accessed the archive of the revision tutorial in the

days prior to the examination. It was not expected that many would access this

archive as the tutorial was held just a little over a week before the examination and

everyone had attended the tutorial.

5.10 Content analysis using the Community of Inquiry framework

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework provided a different lens with which to

investigate and understand the interactions taking place in the online tutorial and the

affordances of the medium. The unit of analysis, defined as a ―message,‖ was

determined as a complete comment by one individual on one particular point, topic

or statistical concept. This was generally one voice comment or one text message as

participants tended to keep their messages short and to the point. Each message was

numbered in order through the tutorial. While listening to the recordings of the

online tutorials and being able to refer to the transcript of text chat contributions,

messages were coded as social presence, teaching presence or cognitive presence

(Sections 2.4 and 3.2.2.3). The messages were also categorised in terms of medium

of delivery, that is, text chat, microphone (voice) or emoticon/icon and by participant

contributing the message.

Three tutorials (n=9) were chosen for this analysis. These tutorials (Tutorial

3, Tutorial 6 and Tutorial 8) spanned the semester so as to give an indication of any

changes in the dynamics of the interactions over time.

i. Tutorial 3 (Week 6) was chosen for analysis to allow sufficient time for

participants to settle into the online environment and to feel comfortable

with me and their fellow students (Sections 5.3 and 5.10.1)

ii. Tutorial 8 (Week 11) was chosen as it was the last tutorial that introduced

new content to the group (Sections 5.8 and 5.10.3)

118

iii. The third tutorial needed to be one in between these two and Tutorial 6

(Week 9) was randomly chosen to fulfil this role (Sections 5.6 and 5.10.2)

The CoI analysis identified 1424 messages across these three tutorials.

5.10.1 Tutorial 3

As previously stated, Tutorial 3, conducted in Week 6, was attended by eight

participants and lasted for 75 minutes (Section 5.3). In this tutorial 333 messages

were identified. The topic for discussion was regression and correlation.

In this tutorial, considerable teacher facilitation was required to maintain the

flow of discussion (Section 5.3.3). This is evidenced by the proportion of messages

(n=167, 50%) contributed by the teacher (Table 5.2). The participants contributed to

varying degrees with S1 and S2 contributing by far the most (n=55, 17% and n=46,

14% respectively), followed by S4 and S7 (n=20, 6% and n=18, 5% respectively). It

should be noted that S9 had ongoing technical issues and did not stay beyond the first

few minutes of the tutorial (n=3, 1%); S8 experienced technical issues with

communication but was able to listen (n=3, 1%); and S11 arrived in the closing few

minutes of the tutorial (n=4, 1%). On the other hand, S3 stayed throughout the

tutorial but chose to listen rather than speak (n=3, 1%). Since the contributions to

discussion by writing on the virtual whiteboard could not be specifically associated

with any particular participant within the Wimba Classroom but were a notable part

of the conversation, these contributions have been collectively classed as ND (not

determined). To omit these contributions would diminish the effect of interaction in

the emerging community and preclude critical data on the presences, specifically

cognitive presence.

The Community of Inquiry framework was used to code each message

(N=333) in the online synchronous tutorial as one of social presence, teaching

presence or cognitive presence (Table 5.2). Teaching presence, principally by the

teacher, dominates the tutorial (n=175, 53%). With reference to all messages,

teaching presence on the part of the teacher (n=152, 46%) was used to foster

cognitive presence amongst the students (n=113, 34%). On the other hand, teaching

presence accredited to students (n=23, 7%) was related to solving technical issues

with the online medium and was therefore deemed teaching presence, as it was

119

related to the design and organisation of the learning experience (Section 2.4.3).

Social presence had a minor part to play in this tutorial (n=43, 13%).

Table 5.2

Tutorial 3: Number of messages by participant and presence (N=333)

Participant Social

Presence

Teaching

Presence

Cognitive

Presence

Frequency (%

of total)

ND 0 0 14 14 (4%)

S1 8 5 42 55 (17%)

S2 11 7 28 46 (14%)

S3 1 2 0 3 (1%)

S4 3 2 15 20 (6%)

S7 3 3 12 18 (5%)

S8 0 1 2 3 (1%)

S9 0 3 0 3 (1%)

S11 4 0 0 4 (1%)

Teacher 13 152 2 167 (50%)

Total 43 (13%) 175 (53%) 115 (35%) 333 (100%)

The role of social presence was more obvious when the timeline of the

occurrence of the presences was investigated (Figure 5.13). Messages were

numbered in order of occurrence and plotted against the type of presence represented

by the message. This graph presents the changes in presence across time, indicating

when each presence predominated. As previously mentioned (Section 5.3) and

consistent with Figure 5.13, social presence occurred at the beginning when

participants greeted one another upon entering the Wimba Classroom and at the end

when they said thank you and farewell. The relatively low incidence of social

presence that occurred in between these times included a thank you to the teacher for

answering a question and explaining a concept, a word of encouragement from me

and a welcome to a latecomer. Interaction primarily involved an oscillation between

120

teaching presence and cognitive presence as the teacher facilitated discussion which

prompted cognitive responses from the participants.

Figure 5.13. Timeline of presences in Tutorial 3

As noted previously, in the online synchronous tutorial there were four principal

avenues for communication: text chat, voice using a microphone, emoticons used to

compensate for the lack of visual cues and icons to acknowledge understanding or

agreement (Tick/Cross). The degree to which each was used is indicated in Table

5.3, with use of emoticons and icons being combined as one category. Most of the

communication involved the microphone (n=182, 55%), although there was a

substantial use of text chat (n=113, 34%).

Participants who contributed most to discussion in the tutorial primarily used

text chat – S1 (n=39, 71%), S2 (n=37, 80%) and S4 (n=18, 90%) – although the

exception was S7 who mostly used the microphone (n=12, 67%), commenting in the

final interview that it was ―just a matter of practice‖ (Table 5.3). With half of the

contributions to the discussion being made by the teacher (n=167, 50%; Table 5.2)

and the fact that the teacher primarily used the microphone as her means of

121

communication (n=149, 89%; Table 5.3), it was not unexpected that most of the

communication occurred using the microphone (n=182, 55%; Table 5.3).

Table 5.3

Tutorial 3: Frequency (percent) of technology use by each participant (N=333)

Participant Using

text chat

Using

microphone

Using

emoticon/icon

Total

ND 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 14 (100%) 14 (100%)

S1 39 (71%) 12 (22%) 4 (7%) 55 (100%)

S2 37 (80%) 5 (11%) 4 (9%) 46 (100%)

S3 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 3 (100%)

S4 18 (90%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 20 (100%)

S7 3 (17%) 12 (67%) 3 (17%) 18 (100%)

S8 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 3 (100%)

S9 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)

S11 4 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

Teacher 8 (5%) 149 (89%) 10 (6%) 167 (100%)

Total 113 (34%) 182 (55%) 38 (11%) 333 (100%)

There appears to be a relationship between presence and the type of

technology used (Table 5.4). Teaching presence was predominantly achieved by way

of the microphone (n=142, 81%), whereas social presence occurred mainly through

text chat (n=32, 74%). With cognitive presence, the distinction is not as strong, with

text chat having the higher proportion (n=62, 54%) compared with using a

microphone (n=31, 27%). As previously mentioned, the technology used tended to

be influenced by the complexity of the comment that was made as it was easier to

verbally express a long and complex comment than write it in text chat.

122

Table 5.4

Relationship between presence and technology used during Tutorial 3 (N=333)

Using

text chat

Using

microphone

Using

emoticon/icon

Total

Social

Presence

32 (74%) 9 (21%) 2 (5%) 43 (100%)

Teaching

Presence

19 (11%) 142 (81%) 14 (8%) 175 (100%)

Cognitive

Presence

62 (54%) 31 (27%) 22 (19%) 115 (100%)

Total 113 (34%) 182 (55%) 38 (11%) 333 (100%)

5.10.2 Tutorial 6

With six participants in attendance, Tutorial 6 was conducted in Week 9 of the

semester and lasted for approximately 75 minutes (see Section 5.6). In this tutorial

373 messages were identified. The topic for discussion was hypothesis testing using

the sign test.

Tutorial 6 had a relatively high level of teacher involvement, as evidenced by

the proportion of messages (n=151, 40%) contributed by the teacher (see Table 5.5).

However, this was not as high as in Tutorial 3 (n= 167, 50%; Table 5.2). The

participants contributed to varying degrees with S6 (n=54, 15%), S4 (n=44, 12%), S1

(n=40, 11%) and S2 (n=38, 10%) contributing by far the most. This represented a

more even distribution of involvement by these four participants than previously. As

in the past, S3 and S7 were relatively quiet (n=15, 4% and n=16, 4% respectively).

As indicated earlier (Section 5.10.1), ND contributions were anonymous entries on

the virtual whiteboard.

123

Table 5.5


Participant Social

Presence

Teaching

Presence

Cognitive

Presence

Frequency (%

of total)

ND 0 0 15 15 (4%)

S1 17 9 14 40 (11%)

S2 10 3 25 38 (10%)

S3 7 2 6 15 (4%)

S4 13 3 28 44 (12%)

S6 23 6 25 54 (15%)

S7 9 2 5 16 (4%)

Teacher 32 118 1 151 (40%)

Total 111 (29%) 143 (38%) 119 (33%) 373 (100%)

The Community of Inquiry framework was again used to code the

contributions to discussion in the tutorial in terms of the three presences (Table 5.5).

With reference to all messages, teaching presence principally associated with the

teacher (n=118, 32%) balanced cognitive presence amongst the students (n=118,

32%).

Social presence in this tutorial showed a marked increase (n=111, 29%; Table

5.5) compared with Tutorial 3 (n=43, 13%; Table 5.2). From Figure 5.14, it can be

seen that social presence occurred not only at the beginning and end of the tutorial

with the usual greetings and farewells but noticeably more so during the content

discussion part in the middle of the tutorial.

There was considerable social conversation at the beginning of the tutorial

(Figure 5.14) as the group had been dealing with the impact of the tragic flood event

that had occurred in the region at that time (Section 5.6). Social presence through the

content discussion part of this tutorial consisted of the usual appreciation shown to

124

the teacher and fellow participants for answering questions and a thank you to the

teacher for explaining a concept. It also included the occasional amusing comment

by a participant to relieve the tension of maintaining a high level of concentration,

such as when S6 commented ―[my] brain hurts but I‘m sure I‘ll be fine!‖


As well as coding messages by presence, they were also categorised by type

of technology used (Table 5.6). Although most of the messages were delivered using

the microphone (n=179, 48%), it should also be acknowledged that the majority of

these were made by the teacher (n=145; Table 5.6).

125

Table 5.6


Student Using

text chat

Using

microphone

Using

emoticon/icon

Total

ND 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 15 (100%) 15 (100%)

S1 26 (65%) 6 (15%) 8 (20%) 40 (100%)

S2 24 (63%) 4 (11%) 10 (26%) 38 (100%)

S3 6 (40%) 4 (27%) 5 (33%) 15 (100%)

S4 31 (70%) 6 (14%) 7 (16%) 44 (100%)

S6 35 (65%) 10 (19%) 9 (17%) 54 (100%)

S7 5 (31%) 4 (25%) 7 (44%) 16 (100%)

Teacher 2 (1%) 145 (96%) 4 (3%) 151 (100%)

Total 129 (35%) 179 (48%) 65 (17%) 373 (100%)

All of the participants who were active in discussion preferred text chat

(Table 5.6): S1 (n=26, 65%), S2 (n=24, 63%), S4 (n=31, 70%) and S6 (n=35, 65%).

Emoticons/icons were mainly used to indicate an answer on the whiteboard or a

Tick/Cross to indicate understanding. Occasionally an emoticon such as smiling or

laughing was used to lighten the moment.

There appears to be a similar relationship between presence and the type of

technology used as was found in Tutorial 3 (Tables 5.4 and 5.7). Teaching presence

is predominantly achieved by way of the microphone (n=120, 84%), whereas social

presence occurs mainly through text chat (n=51, 46%). However, preference for this

particular technology for social presence was not as strong as that seen in Tutorial 3.

Similar to Tutorial 3, cognitive presence was mainly manifest with text chat

(n=69, 58%) compared with using a microphone (n=18, 15%). As previously

mentioned, the technology used tended to be influenced by the complexity of the

comment that was made as it was easier to speak a long and complex comment than

write it in text chat.

126

Table 5.7

Relationship between presence and technology used in Tutorial 6 (N=373)

Using

text chat

Using

microphone

Using

emoticon/icon

Total

Social

Presence

51 (46%) 41 (37%) 19 (17%) 111 (100%)

Teaching

Presence

9 (6%) 120 (84%) 14 (10%) 143 (100%)

Cognitive

Presence

69 (58%) 18 (15%) 32 (27%) 119 (100%)

Total 129 (35%) 179 (48%) 65 (17%) 373 (100%)

5.10.3 Tutorial 8

The eighth and final tutorial on new content was conducted in Week 11 of the

semester with eight participants in attendance. It lasted for approximately 125

minutes (Section 5.8) and yielded 718 messages. The topics for discussion included

the chi-square test of independence and hypothesis testing and confidence interval

for means.

In this tutorial there was a higher level of teacher involvement as evidenced

by the proportion of messages (n=346, 48%) contributed by the teacher (Table 5.8)

than in Tutorial 6 (Table 5.5), but closer to that in Tutorial 3 (Table 5.2). The

participants contributed to varying degrees with S2 and S4 contributing the most

(n=106, 15% and n=61, 9% respectively), closely followed by S1, S9 and S6, (n=49,

7%; n=40, 6% and n=33, 5% respectively). As mentioned before, ND was

anonymous writing by participants on the whiteboard which included underlining of

keywords and indicating answers to multiple-choice questions. This type of

interaction contributed to a small extent overall (n=47, 7%; Table 5.8), but was

considerably more than in previous tutorials, almost proportionately twice as much

as Tutorial 3 (n=14, 4%; Table 5.2) and Tutorial 6 (n=15, 4%; Table 5.5). This could

127

be explained by the increased involvement by participants in the problem-solving

process by writing on the whiteboard during Tutorial 8.

Table 5.8


Participant Social

Presence

Teaching

Presence

Cognitive

Presence

Frequency (%

of total)

ND 0 0 47 47 (7%)

S1 15 1 33 49 (7%)

S2 35 3 68 106 (15%)

S3 3 0 11 14 (2%)

S4 18 4 39 61 (9%)

S6 10 2 21 33 (5%)

S7 3 0 11 14 (2%)

S8 4 4 0 8 (1%)

S9 9 1 30 40 (6%)

Teacher 33 313 0 346 (48%)

Total 130 (18%) 328 (46%) 260 (36%) 718 (100%)

From the CoI coding of the messages into the three presences (Table 5.8), it

can be seen that teaching presence again dominates (n=328, 46%) over cognitive

presence (n=260, 36%) and social presence (n=130, 18%). Teaching presence

increased compared with Tutorial 6 (n=328, 46% in Tutorial 8 compared with n=143,

38% in Tutorial 6) due to the higher proportion of direct instruction necessitated by

the complexity of the content covered (Section 5.8).

From Figure 5.15, it can be seen that social presence occurred throughout this

tutorial and was not restricted to the greetings at the beginning and farewells at the

end of the tutorial (n=130, 18%; Table 5.8). Even though the incidence of social

128

presence was not as frequent as in Tutorial 6 (n=111, 29%; Table 5.5), it took on a

more focussed form of mutual support and encouragement amongst participants.


As well as identifying messages by the presence represented, they were also

categorised by type of technology that was used (Table 5.9). Although more than half

of the messages were delivered using the microphone (n=381, 53%), it should also be

acknowledged that nearly half of all of the contributions (n=346, 48%) were made by

the teacher and nearly all of the teacher‘s contributions (n=344, 99%) were made

using the microphone.

Participants who were active in discussion preferred text chat (Table 5.9): S1

(n=29, 59%), S2 (n=76, 72%), S4 (n=37, 61%), S6 (n=23, 70%), and S9 (n=36,

90%). Emoticons/icons were mainly used to indicate a keyword or an answer on the

whiteboard (47 out of 133) or a Tick/Cross to indicate understanding.

There appears to be a similar relationship between presence and the type of

technology used as was found in Tutorials 3 and 6 (Tables 5.4, 5.7 and 5.10). As

shown in Table 5.10, teaching presence is predominantly achieved by way of the

129

microphone (n=316, 96%), whereas social presence occurs mainly through text chat

(n=59, 45%). However, similar to Tutorial 6, preference for a particular technology

is not as strong in social presence as that seen in Tutorial 3.

Table 5.9


Student Using

text chat

Using

microphone

Using

emoticon/icon

Total

ND 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 47 (100%) 47 (100%)

S1 29 (59%) 10 (20%) 10 (20%) 49 (100%)

S2 76 (72%) 10 (9%) 20 (19%) 106 (100%)

S3 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 13 (93%) 14 (100%)

S4 37 (61%) 6 (10%) 18 (30%) 61 (100%)

S6 23 (70%) 3 (9%) 7 (21%) 33 (100%)

S7 1 (7%) 0 (0%) 13 (93%) 14 (100%)

S8 0 (0%) 5 (63%) 3 (38%) 8 (100%)

S9 36 (90%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 40 (100%)

Teacher 2 (1%) 344 (99%) 0 (0%) 346 (100%)

Total 204 (28%) 381 (53%) 133 (19%) 718 (100%)

Similar to Tutorials 3 and 6, cognitive presence was mainly evident with text

chat (n=134, 52%) compared with using a microphone (n=21, 8%), see Tables 5.4,

5.7 and 5.10. As previously mentioned, the complexity of the comment seemed to

drive which technology was preferred.

130

Table 5.10

Relationship between presence and technology used in Tutorial 8 (N=718)

Using

text chat

Using

microphone

Using

emoticon/icon

Total

Social

Presence

59 (45%) 44 (34%) 27 (21%) 130 (100%)

Teaching

Presence

11 (3%) 316 (96%) 1 (<1%) 328 (100%)

Cognitive

Presence

134 (52%) 21 (8%) 105 (40%) 260 (100%)

Total 204 (28%) 381 (53%) 133 (19%) 718 (100%)

5.10.4 Summary of CoI analysis

Analysing the recordings of the online tutorials using the Community of Inquiry

framework uncovered not only more about the nature of the interaction but also when

each type of interaction occurred in each tutorial. As an aside to this analysis, the

affordances of the technology used were examined. The contribution to each tutorial

by each participant was also revealed.

Of all the presences, teaching presence was most prevalent in all three

tutorials, followed by cognitive presence and then social presence (compare Tables

5.2, 5.5 and 5.8). Tutorials 6 and 8 were noted to have similar distributions of

presence with approximately 15% social presence, 50% teaching presence and 35%

cognitive presence. A more even distribution of the three presences was noted in

Tutorial 6. While cognitive presence stayed consistent across all three tutorials at

about 35%, social presence was markedly higher in Tutorial 6. The difference in

distribution of presences in Tutorial 6 compared with the other two tutorials could be

explained by the exceptional circumstances at the time that this tutorial was

conducted. As previously explained (Section 5.6), the timing of Tutorial 6 coincided

with an unprecedented flood event that all participants experienced to some degree.

This generated more involvement by the participants, in particular more social

engagement.

131

When comparing the timelines of presence (Figures 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15) the

distribution of social presence across a tutorial is most notable. Across the semester

there appears to be a gradual shift in this distribution from the incidence of social

presence mainly appearing at the beginning and end of the tutorial in Tutorial 3 to a

more even distribution across the whole tutorial in Tutorial 8. This could be partly

explained by the increase in a sense of community that developed across the

semester.

Which technology was used depended upon the participant and the purpose.

Teaching presence was mainly afforded by using the microphone, whereas social

presence and cognitive presence were primarily afforded by text chat.

5.11 Summary

This chapter explored issues related to the types of interaction taking place in the

online synchronous tutorial to support learning of statistical concepts and

investigated the nature of the dialogue in this environment for this discipline context,

thus addressing the first two aims of this research study (Section 1.2). Thick

description (Sections 5.1 – 5.9) supported by analysis using the Community of

Inquiry framework (Section 5.10) were used to gain a greater understanding of the

role of synchronous technology in supporting student learning in a quantitative

discipline context. The researcher, as participant-observer, was in a unique position

to maximise this understanding by being ―inside‖ the online tutorial. Recordings of

the tutorials were used to uncover the nature of the interaction amongst the

participants, between the participants and the teacher and between the participants

and the content discussed. Exploring the nature of these interactions further through

the three presences of the CoI framework added to the understanding of the part that

this online environment has to play in supporting distance students when learning

quantitative content.

The outcomes from these analyses are further enhanced by information

gleaned from the responses to the initial survey and in the final interviews (see

Chapter 4). Narratives describing the perceptions of and contributions to the online

synchronous tutorials of four participants who represent the diversity within the

group are presented in Chapter 6.

132

1Chapter 6: Narratives

Four narratives have been collated to provide insights into individual‘s expectations,

perceptions and experiences of the online synchronous tutorial. Data from the initial

survey (Section 4.1), the weekly research questions and interaction in the tutorials

(Sections 5.1 – 5.9), and the final interviews (Section 4.2) have been used to inform

the stories that follow.

From the nine participants who were active in the research study, four

participants, S1, S4, S6 and S7 were selected for these narratives as they represent

the diversity in the research group in a number of key factors: gender (two males and

two females), age (range from 31 years to 67 years), discipline (psychology and non-

psychology – psychology being the largest single cohort of students in the Data

Analysis course), location (two in the capital city and two in regional centres) and

circumstance (variety of other commitments, prior online experiences and experience

of statistics). These details are summarised in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1

Details of narrative participants

Participant Gender

M/F

Age

(~yrs)

Discipline Location Circumstance

Code Alias

S4 Sophie F ~31 Psychology Coastal city At-home

mother

S7 Harry M ~67 Biology Capital city Retiree

S1 Daniel M ~34 Mathematics Capital city

relocated to

country town

Full-time

teacher

S6 Jess F ~48 Psychology Coastal town Teacher on

leave

133

For ease of reading and to personalise their stories, the following aliases for

the participants were chosen: S4 will be called Sophie (Section 6.1), S7 Harry

(Section 6.2), S1 Daniel (Section 6.3) and S6 Jess (Section 6.4). Again, it should be

noted, that as an active participant in the online tutorials (Section 1.7), the researcher

will often use the first person to refer to her interactions with the participants.

6.1 Sophie

At the time of the research study, Sophie was a 31 year old at-home mother of one

young child, taking almost full responsibility for the household as her partner was

frequently working away from home. Although she was not in paid employment, she

participated in voluntary work a couple of days a week. She was repeating the

introductory statistics course, Data Analysis, towards the end of her studies in a

Bachelor of Science degree majoring in psychology. Sophie admitted to being

somewhat nervous about studying Data Analysis because of the content and her past

experience studying this course. She believed that she had been unsuccessful at her

previous attempt due to her circumstances: namely, at that time it was her first course

on returning to university studies after a break; she did not have a reliable Internet

connection; and, she was borrowing the textbook from the library because she did

not have a textbook of her own. Sophie felt that she would have a much greater

chance of passing this time as she: had overcome the disadvantages from her

previous attempt; was more familiar with the software used in the course; was more

familiar with statistical language; and, was ―motivated to learn and get it right‖

(Initial survey).

Sophie had encountered fairly positive mathematical experiences, saying that

she ―used to enjoy maths,‖ but she did admit that she had some problems in the past

with higher-level formulae. Further, in her working life she ―worked with numbers a

lot and learnt how to understand formulas a bit better‖ (Initial survey). She had a

diverse range of positive experiences of the online environment having participated

in group text chats, structured discussions, and online live lectures in Wimba in a

number of her psychology courses. She had not used the asynchronous discussion

forums in her studies in the semester of the research study due to lack of time. She

had, however, used them and the online text chat facilities within the University‘s

learning management system to make contact with other students in the past in other

courses. These experiences motivated Sophie to offer to participate in the study as

134

she found that ―online live lectures or tutes make me feel more involved and in

touch, and help me learn and either keep me on track or get me back on track and

help a lot with direction for study‖ (Initial survey). She did not interact with any of

the other participants outside of the online tutorials, although she indicated that she

would have liked to, but time did not permit.

Sophie was a very active participant in the online tutorials (see Section 5.10,

in particular Tables 5.5 and 5.8 for relative frequencies of messages). She attended

all but one tutorial (Table 5.1). The tutorial she missed was the one immediately after

the major flood event when there were issues with Internet connectivity and power

blackouts. She accessed the archive of this tutorial in preparation for the following

tutorial. Despite this, she still felt behind to some extent during the next tutorial.

Sophie contributed during tutorials using both text chat and the microphone. She was

comfortable with either medium. However, she preferred to use text chat as she did

not want the background sounds of her baby to distract others in the tutorial. She also

commented that one of the advantages of using text chat was that she could be typing

a question while I was talking and then adjust it, depending on what I had said,

before hitting the Enter key to send it. Her circumstances were not always ideal for

participating in the online tutorial, as she had her baby with her each time as

evidenced by his chatter in the background on the occasions when she did use the

microphone. Despite this, she stayed dedicated to the task, ―will have to relisten to

last 5 or 10 mins cause bub ‗singing loudly‘. Will email if any questions after re-

listen‖ (Tutorial 8).

Even though Sophie was not particularly confident in her knowledge of the

subject, she was not intimidated by the group discussions, being prepared to ask

questions ―I hope this isn‘t a silly question‖ (Tutorial 5); offer answers; acknowledge

her mistakes ―Oh whoops‖ (Tutorial 4); and share her successes ―Ah something just

clicked from last week‖ (Tutorial 8). She often apologised to the group, believing

that her questions might confuse people, but, in my role as tutor, I found them to be

useful for clarifying things that were commonly misunderstood. The other

participants seemed to appreciate them as well (see comment made by Jess in Section

6.4). Occasionally Sophie would explain a concept in her own words (using the

microphone) to confirm that she had understood my explanation. With reference to

the CoI framework (Sections 2.4, 3.2.2.3 and 5.10), Sophie‘s contributions to the

135

online tutorial were both social and cognitive, adding substantially to the sense of

community that developed within the tutorial across the semester.

From the research questions asked during the tutorials (Section 3.2.1.3),

Sophie indicated that she found the content to be ―just right‖ and ―thought

provoking.‖ When asked each week to indicate the most important thing that she

obtained from the previous week‘s tutorial, she generally commented on issues that

had been resolved such as ―consolidation of some home learning and clarification of

some question. Hopefully am getting there and switching on!!‖ and ―Got me back on

track again clearing some confusion and explanations made easy to help me

remember and explain things,‖ rather than identifying specific topics. In response to

how she felt about the Data Analysis course, she consistently said that she was

―enjoying it‖ and ―getting on top of it.‖ However, towards the end of the semester

she added that she was also ―struggling.‖ When asked which topics she found most

challenging, she indicated ―binomial and probability, and hypothesis testing and

confidence intervals.‖ Even though the binomial model and probability is covered

early in the course, as tutor/teacher, I was aware that it was a topic that often

continues to plague students throughout the course. Hypothesis testing and

confidence intervals are covered in the last few weeks of semester and link together a

number of concepts from earlier in the course. As such it is also traditionally a topic

that is challenging to most students. Sophie acknowledged that she would ―feel a

sense of achievement‖ when she finished the semester, but added that she would

―feel relieved‖ as well. In the final tutorial she was again asked why she had chosen

to participate and how the online tutorial contributed to her learning of Data

Analysis. She said that she had participated ―to help me learn more thoroughly and

feel more a part of uni as an external student and to take part in a research project for

‗good karma‘ LOL!‖ She felt that the tutorial ―contributed greatly!! Was very helpful

with learning and making me feel a part of something. Felt more in touch and very

thankful for it!!‖

In the final interview, a number of things came to light about Sophie and her

expectations of herself, what she believed she had gained from participating in the

research study, and what she experienced from being involved. One factor in her

decision to participate in the online tutorial was her perception of the benefits she

had experienced from participating in Wimba sessions in the past. She had been

136

hoping ―something like this‖ would happen in Data Analysis. She admitted that she

felt guilty when she fell behind in her studies and that these feelings actually made

her fall behind even more. She decided to join the research study mainly for her own

benefit but added that it was also because it was a research project and - since I had

helped her in the past with her previous attempt at Data Analysis - she wanted to help

me. She expanded on this by noting that, within some of her key psychology courses,

students were expected to participate in research projects undertaken by Honours

students. She had participated in some of these projects and she was hoping that, by

participating in the research projects of others, one day others would do the same for

her.

Sophie displayed a lack of confidence in her knowledge and the outcome of

the examination during the final interview. However, she acknowledged that she was

more dedicated and had more interest in studying statistics this time. She realised

that putting too much pressure on herself to obtain the best marks was

counterproductive and that, once she took this pressure off, she actually performed

better. In answer to a question on what was the most difficult thing about the content

and the course, she commented that it was not so much about learning the statistical

techniques but rather which analysis method to use for a specific context.

When asked how the other participants contributed to her experience in the

online tutorial (Final interview), Sophie said that at first she had been concerned

about asking questions thinking that ―somebody is sitting there rolling their eyes –

can‘t believe they don‘t know that, but it wasn‘t like that at all.‖ She felt that the

other participants actually ―enabled‖ and ―facilitated‖ her by asking questions about

things that she had been wondering or the answers to their questions reinforced

things that she had been thinking. She felt that it was ―good that [there were] real

people out there.‖ She was motivated by them and felt supported by them, as noted in

her remark that ―no one made me feel silly.‖ Because of this, she felt comfortable

with other participants confirming or correcting her understanding.

On the subject of how the online tutorial helped her with learning in Data

Analysis, she admitted that she did not know if she would have been ―lost‖ without it

but she thought that this may have been the case. She saw participation in the online

tutorial as her:

137

… learning tool even before the lecture notes and worksheets and stuff like

that. Hearing stuff, being able to do stuff, and asking questions being thrown

around, and actually physically doing questions that you asked of people,

definitely helped the thinking rather than sitting there and seeing all these

formulas and everything and just panicking.

(Final interview)

When questioned about the need or otherwise for a tutor to be present (Final

interview), Sophie responded that the tutor was ―definitely needed‖ to keep the

students ―on track.‖ She acknowledged that she saw no problem in having text chat

sessions with only students present but, from past experience in another course, she

noticed that on one or two occasions they did ―get off track‖ and ―we all learnt the

wrong thing.‖ She did not believe that she could have come as far without the tutor

―teaching us things and going through examples, giving us questions and making us

think. It wasn‘t even lecture form – actual questions and then we would discuss the

questions, so then understanding would happen.‖ Sophie felt that it was really helpful

to have the commitment of attending the online tutorial each week to keep her up-to-

date and to motivate her. She admitted ―I am always the one that says this is probably

a silly question but, and just to have other people say ‗no, it is not a silly question‘

and you to say that; it makes you a bit more motivated and, like OK, just get on with

it. Good‖ (Final interview).

6.2 Harry

Harry was a 67 year old retiree with no family commitments to impact on his studies.

At the time of the research study, he had only just started in his undergraduate

studies towards a Bachelor of Science majoring in biology, having completed one

course towards his degree. He had completed the tertiary preparatory program prior

to enrolling in the undergraduate degree. Having failed at his first attempt, he was

repeating Data Analysis and decided to only undertake one course in the semester of

the research study. He realised the need to understand statistics better to further his

studies in Biology. Since Harry had recently completed Tertiary Preparatory

Mathematics courses, he believed that this would help him with formulae needed for

Data Analysis. He indicated that he had no prior experience of using asynchronous

discussion forums. Even though Wimba sessions were available in the tertiary

138

preparatory program, he had not participated at that time and regretted not doing so.

Consequently, he decided to join the research study as he thought it would be to his

advantage to learn different ways to solve problems. His sister, who had previously

studied at the University, advised that he should take advantage of it, telling him that

―it will be better for you‖ (Final interview).

In an unsolicited email about halfway through the semester, Harry

commented ―I really enjoy the online Wimba as I have not done it before and get

great feedback not only from you but the other students.‖ He felt that even though

some people had technical difficulties and it was a bit difficult to start with, it was a

good concept, ―like being in a [real] classroom‖ (Final interview). When prompted to

further compare the online to a face-to-face situation and comment on whether

anything about it bothered him, he replied that it was a bit difficult in the beginning

because he had not done it before, but not being face-to-face did not matter because

―you had your nice face on the front anyway.‖ By this, Harry was alluding to a small

photo that I had uploaded to one corner of the main screen in Wimba to make the

online environment less impersonal. To achieve a similar effect, other instructors

have used a video feed of themselves in the corner of the main screen in Wimba. I

did not do this as it used up too much bandwidth and my home Internet connection

was not fast enough to include video.

Harry was the most reliable participant in the research study having attended

all nine tutorials (Table 5.1). He did not see it as an imposition to commit to the one

hour each week. In fact, in the final interview, he said that he had enjoyed it. Though

he could be colloquially described as a ―man of few words‖ (Tables 5.2, 5.5 and 5.8),

he occasionally contributed to the discussion using both text chat and the

microphone. In particular, if he was specifically asked a question, he would always

offer an answer using the microphone. It was noticeable that he contributed more to

discussion in Tutorial 7 when there were only four participants present (Section

5.7.3). He contributed most frequently to questions that needed calculations to be

completed and when statistical tables needed to be used. Even in the tutorials where

he only contributed a couple of comments or questions, his presence throughout was

noticed as he acknowledged his understanding or otherwise using the Tick/Cross

icon when asked. He commented that he was not used to speaking in the online

environment and felt that people were ―a bit shy‖ of using the microphone. He added

139

that it was a matter of practice and that ―after the first three or four sessions we all

got pretty helpful to each other‖ (Final interview). He joined in the social text chat at

times bringing his dry sense of humour to the group. For example, he commented

―Take a GPS‖ when Daniel (S1) mentioned his impending road trip through the

floods to his new home in the central-north of the state (Tutorial 5), and to me, that ―I

thought that the dog might have chewed your mic‖ (Tutorial 8) when I had

inadvertently turned off my microphone for a few minutes in the middle of an

explanation.

Similar to responses given by Sophie (S4; Section 6.1) to a research question

during the tutorials, Harry indicated that he found the content to be ―just right‖ and

―thought provoking.‖ When asked each week to indicate the most important thing

that he obtained from the previous week‘s tutorial, he generally commented on some

aspect of the topic covered in that tutorial, such as graphs and variables through to

hypotheses and proportion. In response to how he felt about the course he mostly

chose ―getting on top of it,‖ but in the final few tutorials he added that he was

―enjoying it.‖ Asked which topics he found most challenging, again Harry gave a

response similar to that given by Sophie (S4) when he indicated ―binomial and

probability and hypothesis testing and confidence intervals.‖ However, when asked

in the final interview what he thought was most difficult about the content and the

course, Harry referred to the language of statistics, how it was different from

mathematics and that it was ―not that difficult, but just had different concepts.‖ In

addition, Harry mentioned that the subject matter was very important to his future

studies in biology and that it was ―relevant to everything.‖

Despite any difficulties with the content, he acknowledged that he would

―feel a sense of achievement‖ when he finished the semester. In the final tutorial, he

was also asked why he had chosen to participate and how the online tutorial

contributed to his learning of Data Analysis. He participated ―to be more informed

and to learn how other students study.‖ He felt that the tutorial was ―very good as I

can revise with the recording tute [archive].‖

When asked if he would like to have Wimba sessions in other courses in the

future, Harry responded ―definitely, most brilliant things ever‖ (Final interview). He

believed that it was good to use Wimba to interact with other students and he was

―pretty sure everyone got something out of it.‖ He felt that all students should use

140

Wimba more often. Harry did not make contact with other participants outside the

designated tutorial time but admitted that he ―should have done‖ (Final interview).

This course had very active asynchronous discussion forums. Harry

commented that he read forum posts, but did not use them as much as he believed he

should have. He added that the online tutorials were better because of the immediacy

which he explained as being ―one-on-one straight away.‖ He felt that it was useful

―sitting in your own room reading a book and you can go back and forward [in the

book],‖ but with the tutor and other students in the online tutorial it ―brings much

more to life what you are actually trying to study‖ (Final interview).

Harry was the only participant in the research study who used all the archives

of the online tutorials. In fact, he watched most of them at least twice, often in the

couple of weeks following the tutorial and then again during the revision period just

prior to the examination. When asked about this, he commented that he could replay

everything several times to interact with and hear what everyone said.

When asked how the other participants contributed to his experience in the

online tutorial, he pointed out that different people asked different questions and

brought lots of different viewpoints to the discussion. He also added that the tutor

moderated the process and explained ―where we all went wrong or right,‖ and that it

was ―like being in a classroom using the blackboard‖ (Final interview). He felt that

the tutorial would not have been as effective without the tutor.

Unfortunately, Harry was a victim of the post flood disruptions on the

morning of the examination. The ferries and trains to his suburb were disrupted and

despite allowing twice the usual amount of time for bus transport, he was unable to

arrive at the examination centre on time. As a result, he was given a supplementary

examination which he subsequently sat and passed at the end of the following

semester.

6.3 Daniel

Daniel was a 34 year old full-time high school teacher who was completing the

Graduate Certificate in Science (Mathematics) in order to teach the higher levels of

the secondary mathematics curriculum. He had two young children under the age of

three and, as a result, found that mornings and nights were very busy times of the

141

day. He was excited by the prospect of studying Data Analysis as he saw it as ―a

useful tool in today‘s data-driven workplace‖ (Initial survey). He felt that his past

experiences of mathematics, especially his recent solid passes in two undergraduate

mathematics courses, would stand him in good stead for his current studies in

statistics. Daniel had experienced online communication in the form of asynchronous

discussion forums in his previous courses but had no experience of synchronous

communication, such as in Wimba, with tutors or other students. He felt that

participation in the research study ―might make me set aside some definite weekly

time to study and think about the subject matter‖ (Initial survey).

Daniel was a very active participant in the online tutorials (Tables 5.2, 5.5

and 5.8). He attended all but two of the nine tutorials (Table 5.1). He missed Tutorial

1 because he had committed to a school awards night prior to agreeing to participate

in the research study. He missed Tutorial 7 because he did not have an Internet

connection for that week as he had very recently arrived in the relatively small

country town where he was taking up a new teaching position. However, he did

watch the archive of Tutorial 7 before the tutorial that followed.

Even though Daniel had experienced some technical difficulties at times, he

felt comfortable in the Wimba environment. He used a mixture of text chat and

microphone to communicate during the tutorials, ―as children of the digital age we‘re

kind of able to do both‖ (Final interview). Having to use the Hand-up icon to ask a

question using the microphone was not seen as an inconvenience to him, as he

recognised that there were no visual cues to do this otherwise. Daniel was

comfortable with using the microphone or text chat, but regularly used text chat so as

to not interrupt the flow of the conversation. He commented that he did not like

interrupting anyone.

Daniel added value to the tutorial discussions in a number of ways. He was

confident with giving his version of an explanation to add clarity. Even when he had

not covered content prior to the tutorial and he was unsure, he worked in the moment

and was prepared to offer answers to my questions (Tutorial 8). He offered support

and encouragement to his fellow participants. When Jess (S6) picked up on an error

in an answer that Daniel had offered, he thanked her by saying ―Good catch Jess‖

(Section 5.4.3). When Sophie (S4) was excited at getting something correct that she

had struggled with earlier, Daniel clicked on the Clapping-hands icon to show

142

support (Tutorial 4). He also added to the comfort of others by freely admitting when

he was having trouble - ―I got confused with the wording here. My mind doesn‘t like

the negative phrasing‖ (Tutorial 6) - when he could just as easily have not said

anything. Daniel added depth to the discussion by looking beyond the topic and

trying to link different concepts together to ask a more complex question or make a

perceptive comment. This was evidenced when he was looking for a connection

between the normal approximation to the binomial distribution and the central limit

theorem (Tutorial 5).

Even though Daniel had experienced some difficult circumstances and

technical problems through the semester, he persisted with attending the tutorials. He

unexpectedly managed to participate successfully in Tutorial 6, despite the fact that

he was in a hotel room with his family (which included two small children) using an

unstable mobile Internet connection. This became necessary as he was delayed in his

journey to his new employment due to the widespread flooding that was occurring

that summer. A happy consequence of this delay was that he was able to meet with

Jess (S6) face-to-face for a study session during this stopover in her hometown

(Tutorial 6, Section 5.6.3).

From the research questions asked during the tutorials, Daniel initially

indicated that he found the content to be ―nothing new but helpful.‖ For the later

tutorials, similar to the comments of Sophie (S4) and Harry (S7), he responded that

they were ―just right‖ and ―thought provoking.‖ In each tutorial, when asked to

indicate the most important thing that he got out of the previous week‘s tutorial, he

commented on issues such as ―that I wasn‘t as far behind as I thought I was. That I‘m

on the right track and it‘s not as hard as it looks‖ (Tutorial 3), as well as particular

topics such as ―using different formulas for finding the SD and mean for proportion

and mean of a sampling distribution‖ (Tutorial 6). In response to how he felt about

the course, his choices included ―enjoying it‖ and ―getting on top of it.‖ When asked

which topics he found most challenging, he indicated ―contingency tables and

conditional distributions‖ and, in agreement with Sophie (S4) and Harry (S7),

―hypothesis testing and confidence intervals.‖ He acknowledged that he would ―feel

a sense of achievement‖ when he finished the semester, but added that he would also

―feel relieved.‖

143

In the final tutorial, when asked why he had chosen to participate in the

online tutorial, he responded that he participated ―to help motivate me to keep up to

date and to give me an opportunity to see more examples of the types of problems we

read about in the book.‖ With reference to the question on how the tutorial

contributed to his learning, he felt that it ―helped me by either introducing me to the

topic (if I was running behind on the study schedule) or by consolidating my

knowledge on the topics.‖

When asked at the final interview why he had decided to participate in the

online tutorial, he replied that his main motivation was ―keeping me involved with

things, trying to feel more a part of a learner‘s community as opposed to just logging

on and viewing lectures.‖ He further clarified that he ―was after the interactivity and

maybe the community of learners.‖

If he had been given the opportunity to be involved in Wimba sessions in

other courses, Daniel indicated that he would have appreciated it, particularly with

his higher-level mathematics course. He identified that seeing problems worked out

in real time and being able to ask questions for immediate feedback as benefits of the

online tutorial in Wimba. He added that, while viewing recordings of campus

lectures in his mathematics course, he had felt ―if only I could ask or make a point or

if I could only say something, then I think that it would have helped my

understanding of the content‖ (Final interview).

As briefly mentioned earlier, Daniel had the unique experience of meeting

face-to-face with one of the other study participants. Even though some participants

lived in the same city as one another, none of them arranged to meet outside the

tutorial. While travelling with his family to their new location, Daniel was delayed in

Jess‘s home town for a week due to the widespread flooding happening throughout

the state at that time. During the online tutorial that week, Jess realised that Daniel

was in town, so they swapped contact information and arranged to meet on two

occasions. As Daniel put it in the final interview:

… we met to just look over some of the stuff and make sure we were on the

right page, and I guess it just really turned into us reassuring each other

that we were sort of doing the right thing, making sure we were touching all

the bases, just because there was a lot of different avenues of data coming at

us, from the book, to the study book, to the website.

144

In the final interview, when asked about the contributions of other

participants to the tutorial, Daniel commented that it was good to see other people‘s

ideas and questions – ―there were some that thought of things that I hadn‘t thought

of.‖ However, he felt that the tutor was an important part, being the leader and

keeping everyone on track, ―groups tend to lose focus unless they have a strong

leader.‖ While he acknowledged that the leader did not have to be the tutor and this

role could be filled by a student, he admitted that he liked having a person there who

knew the content ―down pat,‖ a content expert. He did not feel that the tutorial would

have been as effective if the tutor had not been present. In fact, he commented that he

probably would not have participated if that had been the case. Even though Daniel

found the archives useful and had accessed them twice to cover material he had

missed, he felt that it was much better being a participant and having a tutor present.

In assisting his learning of the Data Analysis course, he felt that the online

tutorial was often a consolidation tool. However, once, when he had not prepared

before one of the tutorials, he found that the tutorial was a valuable tool to introduce

the topic to him. He found the examples discussed in the tutorial were easy to follow.

He felt that this made studying that particular topic easier. He viewed the tutorial as

providing a ―safety net‖ above and beyond any other support provided in the course,

with a weekly routine where he could talk to an expert. He noted that the topic that

he had most difficulty with was hypothesis testing, in particular, notation. He

commented that his ―understanding went back and forth between feeling confident

and not feeling so confident, especially with notation between a statistic and a

parameter‖ (Final interview).

Overall, as an external student, he appreciated being able to participate in the

online tutorial. It made him set aside a little time to work on the course. In addition,

he added that it ―makes us external students feel valued by this support‖ (Final

interview).

6.4 Jess

Jess was a 48 year old former high school teacher studying a Bachelor of Science

majoring in psychology with plans to transfer to the Graduate Diploma in

Psychological Studies when she had sufficient prerequisite courses completed. She

had been working full-time but found combining work and study to be quite

145

stressful. At the beginning of the summer semester, with two courses already

completed towards her degree, she decided to take a break from teaching and

concentrate on her studies. Jess was feeling confident about studying Data Analysis,

especially with the support that was available (Initial survey). She had studied

statistics at tertiary level many years ago and attributed her underperformance at that

time to a lack of motivation and poor work ethic rather than a lack of mathematical

ability. In recent times, she had successfully taught some statistics as part of the

secondary school curriculum, so she did not feel that her past experiences in

mathematics would have any impact on her current studies in Data Analysis.

Jess used the asynchronous discussion forums in the Data Analysis course.

Although she had not previously used synchronous communication such as Wimba

in her studies, she did have experience of this type of online communication in

professional development activities in her employment. When asked in the initial

survey why she had decided to participate in the research study her response was

―Why not?‖ She thought that it would be a ―great way‖ to develop her technological

skills while studying Data Analysis. She added ―I am a strong believer in learning in

context and these tutorials will be a great way to do this.‖ Jess also thought that she

might have to use Wimba in future studies, so she might as well take this opportunity

to develop her confidence and competence in this area. When asked if she would like

to have online tutorials in Wimba in any of her other courses, she indicated that it

would depend on the content of the course (Final interview).

As with Sophie (S4), Jess was interested in the research aspect of the project.

She was hopeful of undertaking some research of her own in postgraduate studies in

the future – ―good to be on the receiving end sometimes so it gives you a better idea

of what is going on‖ (Final interview). She also appreciated the interaction that the

online tutorial could afford, offering that ―the more contact you have with people

about your work, the more you can discuss it, the better your understanding. It opens

up so much more than if you are by yourself and isolated‖ (Final interview). Because

she had previous experience of video conferencing through her work, she was

confident using either text chat or microphone to communicate in Wimba. She could

see advantages in someone being able to write while someone else was speaking,

saying that it ―probably mimics the actual real life classroom better if you are

actually also able to write while someone‘s speaking‖ (Final interview).

146

As a result of an unexpected opportunity, Jess met face-to-face with one of

her fellow participants in the research study (Section 6.3). When Jess realised that

Daniel (S1) was going to be staying in her town because of a delay in his travels due

to flooding in the region, she approached him about meeting for a study session by

addressing him directly using text chat during Tutorial 6. In the final interview, Jess

mentioned that they met at the local library, ―which was really good. I enjoyed

meeting someone else who was actually in the tutorial group.‖ She added that she

would ―love to‖ have talked to the other students, face-to-face.

Jess was an active contributor to all aspects of the online tutorials (Table 5.5).

She attended all but one of the tutorials (Table 5.1). She missed Tutorial 3 because of

a lack of Internet connectivity while moving house. Jess did not access any of the

archives. Moving house during the semester, looking after her niece for part of the

semester, participating in the research study, and studying another course in addition

to Data Analysis over the shorter than usual Summer semester all contributed to

reducing the time she had available to access the archives. She added that she ―would

love to have used them, but did not physically have the time.‖ Despite this, she

thought that ―they were really valuable and probably would have spent a fair bit of

time thinking about the questions in terms of revision‖ (Final interview).

Jess was comfortable using both the microphone and text chat. She was

prepared to ask questions when she did not understand. She was supportive of other

students, noticeably when she commented ―No such thing as a silly q‘n Sophie,‖

when Sophie (S4) prefaced a question with ―I hope this isn‘t a silly question‖

(Section 5.5.3). On another occasion, she supported Sophie‘s questioning by saying

―Thanks Sophie, I was wondering this as well‖ (Tutorial 6). Jess did not hide her

worries and concerns saying ―Good, I was getting nervous‖ (Tutorial 5). This was in

response to my comment to the group that some of the questions we had been

discussing were somewhat more difficult than the ones they would need to answer in

the examination. She was noticeably quieter in Tutorial 8 but she later acknowledged

that she had not covered the content before the tutorial. At one stage in Tutorial 7,

she became a little overwhelmed, commenting that ―I‘m confused as there‘s so

much.‖ However, she did not let that stop her from participating actively in the

discussions.

147

From the research questions asked during the tutorials, and similar in

response to Sophie (S4) and Harry (S7) and, to some extent, Daniel (S1), Jess

indicated that she found the content to be mostly ―just right‖ and ―thought

provoking.‖ In the latter part of the semester when the material became somewhat

more complex, she also added ―a bit confusing.‖ When asked each week to indicate

the most important thing that she obtained from the previous week‘s tutorial, Jess

commented on issues such as ―that I was behind and this gives me more incentive to

catch up despite trying to finish my job and move house – busy time!‖ and

―confirmed what I knew but was a good reminder and allowed me to tie things

together better – big picture stuff.‖ She also mentioned particular topics such as ―it

helped me sort out the logic behind the sign test but I‘m still confused about some

things, probably minor but will ask if Wimba session on this week.‖ In response to

how she felt about the course, her initial choices included ―enjoying it,‖ but towards

the end of the semester there were more of ―getting on top of it,‖ ―struggling‖ and

―still worried.‖ When asked which topics she found most challenging, she indicated

―sampling distributions‖ and, similar to Sophie (S4), Harry (S7) and Daniel (S1),

―hypothesis testing and confidence intervals.‖ She was looking forward to ―getting

some sleep‖ and ―having a party‖ when she finished the semester, but added that she

would also like to ―take a holiday‖ (Final tutorial).

Because Jess was late to the Revision Tutorial (final tutorial of the semester),

I asked her to email me her responses to the research questions that had been asked.

When Jess was asked why she had chosen to participate in the online tutorial and

how the tutorial contributed to her learning of Data Analysis, she indicated that she

had participated because ―I'm all for getting as much help as I can get - from you and

other students.‖ She added that ―if I am also able to do something to help someone

else along the way or other students now and in the future; all the better! A win-win

for all concerned!‖ She felt that she needed to boost her confidence with regards to

using technology, ―using Wimba was a good-sized leap for me at the time. I also

knew that I would be using Wimba later this year, so it just made sense to make the

most of this opportunity.‖ She indicated that she missed the interaction that occurs in

classes on campus, commenting that ―distance study is extremely flexible but face-

to-face chats about work and hearing how other people think are very powerful when

learning new work.‖ Jess added, ―I am so sick of playing it safe and not making the

148

most of opportunities - nothing like risk-taking and getting in your discomfort zone‖

(Final tutorial).

When asked to comment on how the tutorial contributed to her learning, Jess

said that it clarified the content, including links between topics. For her it ―verified

what I was thinking or corrected my thinking, highlighted what I didn't understand so

I could alter my thinking, etc. (there is no way I'm going to pretend I understood

everything)‖ (Final tutorial). She added that it ―helped in understanding the language

of DA [Data Analysis] by listening to how it was used while interacting.‖ She found

drawings very helpful when trying to solve a problem or to understand a

concept. She also felt that involvement in the online tutorial was ―applying pressure

to get up to date when behind.‖

When talking about what went on in the online tutorials, Jess commented that

some people seemed hesitant and did not participate as well as they might have if

they had had the opportunity to meet others in the group face-to-face. She thought

that perhaps some of the participants felt unsure of themselves because of the subject

matter and did not want to reveal how much they may not have known. On the other

hand, she felt that there were some who obviously enjoyed it and ―that really stood

out‖ (Final interview). She enjoyed the interaction and support that the tutorial

offered, saying that it was ―nice to share the responsibility.‖ She felt that it was

important to assist others to feel comfortable – ―where you can support people and

do what you can. I think we learn a lot from each other.‖ On the subject of whether a

tutor needed to be present, Jess noted that, for some people, it would have been

difficult without the tutor‘s input. She added that even though they were all adult

learners and there was an expectation that they were independent, some needed to be

directed on where to go so that they did not ―get stuck on something and stay there

for too long‖ (Final interview).

On the whole, Jess did not really find the course that difficult although she

mentioned that she could understand why some may have had problems. She thought

that the initial few weeks were not that troublesome but the second half of the course

―was really heavy going‖ (Final interview). She felt that the terminology was not an

issue and that familiarity, hearing it and seeing it, was the key. Where she had most

difficulty was with the amount of time, or rather the lack of it, she had to devote to

the course. She was disappointed that she did not have time to revise for the

149

examination in her usual manner. At times the online tutorial provided clarity in

some of the content for her, ―someone would say something and the light bulb would

come on and you think ‗Ah,‘ because you thought you understood it but you didn‘t

totally understand something‖ (Final interview). She felt that talking to people in the

online tutorial format really helped, offering that ―I think I would have found it a lot

more difficult to realise that I was having problems if I had actually just got on the

discussion list and actually just entered something there. I don‘t think that it would

have been the same‖ (Final interview).

6.4 Summary of the narratives

Each narrative provided insights into the individual journeys of a variety of

participants through the semester of Data Analysis. Each participant recognised the

beneficial impact on motivation and ―keeping on track‖ that the tutorials provided.

By being ―forced‖ to set aside specific time each week to participate in the tutorial

they were able to consolidate their learning and clarify any misunderstandings on a

regular basis. The immediacy of the online synchronous tutorial allowed them to hear

different viewpoints, learn from each other and obtain timely feedback from the

tutor/teacher, like being in a ―real‖ classroom. While they all indicated that they

enjoyed the tutorials, they added that the tutorials were also thought provoking.

Through their social presence they each contributed to the sense of community which

in turn gave participants the confidence to contribute without fear of ridicule.

The common themes to emerge from the findings of Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are

discussed in Chapter 7. This discussion relates to the aims of the study through the

affordances of the technology used, the interaction that resulted in the online

synchronous tutorials, the nature of the dialogue that developed and the participant

perceptions of the value of these tutorials to their learning. Chapter 7 concludes with

some suggestions for further research.

150

Chapter 7: Discussion and conclusions

By examining the processes of an online synchronous tutorial in introductory

statistics at a regional university in Australia, this case study sought to answer the

following question:

How does an online synchronous environment contribute to the learning of statistical

concepts by distance learners?

As introduced in Chapter 1 of this document, the aims of this study were:




discipline context;





The research question will be addressed by considering each of these aims in turn.

The ―case‖ in this study was explored by describing the interactions amongst a

community of learners that occurred in a series of online synchronous tutorials over a

period of one semester (as introduced in Section 1.6).

In accordance with case study methodology, multiple methods of data

collection (as described in Section 3.2.1) and analysis (as described in Section 3.2.2

and presented in Chapters 4, 5 and 6) were used to investigate the interactions and

the nature of the dialogue taking place in online synchronous tutorials in a

quantitative discipline context. Discussion of these findings will focus on four

elements: the affordances of the online synchronous environment (Section 7.1) and

description of the interaction that occurred in this environment (Section 7.2) to

address the first aim, the nature of the dialogue in this environment (Section 7.3) to

address the second aim, and student perceptions of the value of this environment

(Section 7.4) to address the third aim. The integration of these elements will be

151

discussed in the context of teaching and learning of statistical concepts in an online

synchronous tutorial leading to a proposed model of online synchronous learning in

this context (Section 7.5), addressing the fourth aim of the study. Proposed future

research directions are offered (Section 7.6) and a postscript (Section 7.7) will

complete this thesis.

7.1 The online synchronous environment

The nature of distance education has been moulded over time by technological

advances and the availability of the technology to the masses (Anderson, 2008;

Moore & Kearsley, 2005). The rapid development of communications technologies

and associated potential to provide increased interactivity between teachers and

students are finally being realised (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004). Through the

affordances of such technologies more flexible learning environments have

developed (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004). In order to understand the learning

taking place in a computer-supported collaborative environment, interaction and

discourse afforded by such environments need to be described and analysed in detail

(De Wever et al., 2006) (see Section 2.3). While asynchronous technologies offer

time to read and reflect before formulating a response and may offer more time on

task and the flexibility to construct knowledge at any time (Section 2.3.1), they can

be lacking in the area of immediate and timely feedback, spontaneity and replication

of a ―real‖ classroom to reduce transactional distance (Bates, 2005; see Section

2.3.2). With greater understanding of the affordances provided by technology the

teacher has a pivotal role to play in exploiting the benefits and minimising the

technical difficulties of the online synchronous environment.

Within the interactive online learning platform used in this study, voice

(using a microphone), text chat, writing on a virtual whiteboard and emoticons/icons

were the means of communication. Within this online synchronous environment, the

context of the communication (subject matter and people discussing it) and the

subsequent combinations of these four forms of communication influenced the

dynamics of the interaction taking place (see Chapter 5, particularly Section 5.10).

With the lack of visual cues, the teacher was necessarily the instigator and

facilitator of any interaction in the initial stages of the online synchronous tutorials in

this study, be that social engagement or content discussion. Since it was much easier

152

for the teacher to express complex thoughts using voice rather than typing (as in text

chat), much of the conversation in the online tutorial was initiated using voice

(Section 5.10, Tables 5.3, 5.6 and 5.9). Even though voice may be considered easier

to use, the participants were reticent to use it, favouring instead text chat (Section

5.1.3). This did vary amongst participants and across the semester (Section 5.10).

The use of voice seemed to be related to the level of complexity of what needed to be

said and what was happening in the tutorial at the time. Specifically, if a participant

was addressed by name with the teacher either posing a question or asking for

comment, the participant invariably answered using the microphone. It was

perceived by some participants that using text chat allowed them to contribute to the

conversation without interrupting the flow of proceedings (Sections 4.2.4, 5.6.3 and

5.9.3). It also meant that background noise in the various locations of the participants

did not impinge (Sections 4.2.4 and 6.1).

While teachers need to exploit the affordances of the technology to engage

and motivate all students to actively interact with the content, they also need to

temper this with an appreciation of the diversity within the group of students in

relation to the level of familiarity with the terminology required by the content,

degree of difficulty of the content and attitude of students towards the content being

discussed, particularly pertinent to the study of statistics. This becomes even more

critical in an online synchronous environment because of the immediacy of the

interaction in combination with the lack of visual cues to indicate how comfortable

students are with what is being asked of them. This was evident when participants

were being encouraged to use the microphone to which the response from one was

―we are all shy‖ (Section 5.1.3). It needs to be acknowledged that active involvement

could mean sitting quietly during the tutorial taking it all in, similar to ―pedagogical

lurking‖ as described in the asynchronous environment (Dennen, 2008). At least

three participants were not as active in their contributions (Tables 5.3, 5.6 and 5.9),

but were nonetheless involved in the learning process, indicating a level of

understanding when requested using the Tick/Cross icon and then reviewing the

content later by listening to an archived recording and replaying the parts that needed

to be reinforced (Section 6.2).

While the online tutorial could be likened to a face-to-face classroom

because of synchronicity, one advantage of this online medium was that several

153

participants could be answering a question or making a comment at the same time

through the Chat window, whereas in a face-to-face situation this would be seen as

talking over one another (Sections 4.2.4 and 5.5.3). In the online environment this

simultaneous communication could also be happening while the teacher was

explaining a concept or discussing an example using voice and the virtual

whiteboard. This had both positive and negative consequences. It meant that

participants did not have the frustration of waiting to take their turn. They could post

a question or response whenever they felt the need. It also meant that the teacher did

not have to be as controlling of the situation as would likely happen in a face-to-face

classroom or in the virtual situation by requiring the Hand-up icon to be used to

request an opportunity to speak. This resulted in a free flowing conversation

developing with considerable participant involvement (Cox, et al., 2004). On the

other hand, for some (the teacher included), it could be chaotic and troublesome

keeping up with the bombardment of information and consequent cognitive overload

(Kear et al., 2012). This could explain in some way the use of the archives to

reinforce learning by participants who had actually attended the tutorial (Section

4.2.3 and Table 5.1). In addition, this could partly explain the reticence of some to

actively engage in the conversation and be satisfied with listening and reading the

contributions of others (Section 4.2.4).

Prior experience of the online synchronous environment did not seem to

make any difference to how well participants adapted to the environment although it

probably helped that some in the group were familiar with it (Sections 4.1.4 and 6.2).

After an initial orientation to the interactive online learning platform and some

practice at using features within it, such as the Tick/Cross icon to confirm

understanding and the Hand-up icon to signify wanting to say something using a

microphone, participants became comfortable with interacting (Section 4.2.4).

Occasionally there were technical issues to do with functionality within the

interactive online learning platform and individual Internet connection speeds, for

instance the inconvenience of having to hold down the Talk button to speak, but

these were far outweighed by the benefits of interaction with other participants and

the tutor/teacher and the convenience of being able to join the ―class‖ from home

(Section 4.2.4). With time and experience, the technology afforded a heightened

sense of community which in turn meant that the technology could be exploited in a

154

number of different ways to accommodate different learning styles. The active

learners could contribute openly in the Chat window or using voice. The passive

learners (pedagogical lurkers) could listen and observe yet still participate by

indicating understanding using the Tick/Cross icon and feel part of the community

(Cox et al., 2004; Dennen, 2008). Even though these passive learners could obtain

the relevant information from the archives, they still chose to attend the tutorials on a

regular basis (Table 5.1). Over time as participants became more comfortable with

the technology and the fact that it was not possible to distinguish who was writing on

the virtual whiteboard, collaborative problem-solving developed more fully (Section

5.9). Anonymity may have assisted in this.

How the affordances of the technology were maximised was influenced

strongly by the teacher. The teacher set the tone and expectations for the class. This

was achieved in the first instance by social engagement early in the teaching period

and at the beginning of each class, as this was a non-threating way to encourage

participants to use the technology to greatest advantage (Section 5.1.3). The use of

―ice-breaker‖ questions at the beginning of each tutorial encouraged participants to

become active and prompted social conversation. The teacher tried to be inclusive in

fostering the online communication by asking specific participants by name to

contribute. However, it was difficult for the teacher to have a clear indication of what

participants were comfortable with in relation to using the technology, especially as

there were no visual cues. In this there needed to be an element of compromise to

allow participants to ascertain for themselves how they wanted to use the technology,

for example, whether to use voice or text chat, and not try to force this issue. The

teacher needed to find a balance between being inclusive by asking specific

participants to respond and potentially alienating a reluctant participant.

The intention of the online synchronous tutorial in this context was to

actively engage students in a community of learners studying the quantitative content

of introductory statistics by emulating a ―real‖ classroom (Anderson, 2003b;

Garrison et al, 2000; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). The affordances of the interactive

online learning platform, Wimba Classroom, were exploited in different ways by

different people. While some participants primarily used text chat others were

willing to use a combination of text chat and voice. All participants made use of the

Tick/Cross icon, but it was not possible to distinguish who was writing on the virtual

155

whiteboard. The operational characteristics of voice (using a microphone), text chat

and writing on a virtual whiteboard and their relative ease of use within Wimba were

the enablers behind the interaction observed in the online tutorial. However,

affordances of technology need to be balanced by creative pedagogy (Twomey,

2009). In this lies the challenge for the teacher to provide not only the physical

environment (albeit virtual in this case), but also the necessary learning environment

to engage the students interactively.

7.2 Describing interaction in the online tutorial

With the widespread uptake of distance education a long-held view was that students

would need to choose between independence and interaction, but this is no longer

believed to be the case; both can coexist (Garrison, 2000). Interaction involves a

myriad of connections (Anderson, 2008; Anderson & Dron, 2011) in order to reduce

transactional distance (Moore, 2007) and build a collaborative community of learners

(Garrison et al, 2000; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; see Figure 2.2). In addressing the

first aim, this study investigated the dynamics of interaction taking place in the

online tutorials in terms of three components: the people involved, the content being

discussed and the technology being utilised. It further attempted to understand how

these three components came together to form a community of learners by analysing

these interactions in terms of the three presences of the Community of Inquiry

framework (Garrison et al., 2000).

7.2.1 People interacting

While participants in this study were all adults and as such were independent learners

capable of self-direction (Garrison, 2003), they nonetheless appreciated the support

given by their involvement in the online synchronous tutorials, particularly given the

perceived difficulty of the content being studied (Merriam, 2001; see Section 4.2.3).

With the lack of visual cues in the tutorial, participants were not influenced by the

physical appearance of fellow participants. While the sound of a voice and a name

generally indicated gender, age was not necessarily able to be determined and was

not directly revealed in social conversation across the semester. Considering the

diversity in age of the participants (Table 6.1), age-bias was a potential inhibiter to

the development of the sense of community amongst this group. With this in mind

156

lack of visual cues could be considered as a positive factor in the promotion of

collaboration amongst the participants (Freiermuth, 2002).

Social presence was an important component in the development of

community amongst the group (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Establishment of social

presence was facilitated and modelled by the teacher from the very beginning of the

semester and then fostered throughout at the beginning and conclusion of each

tutorial. Inadvertently, people‘s personal lives impinged on the interaction taking

place in the online tutorial. Since each one of the research participants was sitting in

front of a computer in their own home, everyday life, such as a baby gurgling or a

dog going crazy, was happening in the background and this added to the connection

felt within the group, ―making names into people‖ (Sections 4.2.6, 5.9.3 and 6.1).

Social presence interacted with teaching presence to establish the

connectedness amongst the group needed to encourage the collaborative problem-

solving activities of cognitive presence (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009; see Section 2.4.2).

With a mixture of facilitation, direct instruction and timely feedback the teacher was

able to support participants to contribute questions, explain their reasoning and offer

answers (Anderson et al., 2001). Hearing the contributions of others helped

participants to view problems from a number of different perspectives which led to

greater understanding (Section 4.2.2).

As the semester progressed, the oscillation between teaching presence and

cognitive presence became more interspersed with social presence (Figure 5.15).

Further to this, social presence in the form of emotional and social support,

evidenced by comments such as ―good point‖ and ―no such thing as a silly question,‖

became an integral part of the interactions within the group (Sections 5.5.3 and

5.8.3). Comments providing this type of support were not directly related to

cognitive presence and, as such, could be seen as unnecessary, yet at opportune

moments they provided the incentive to keep cognitive interaction moving forward.

In a social sense they also provided lighter moments to bring some relief from the

intensity and immediacy of content discussion and thus reduced cognitive overload

(Kear et al., 2012; Section 5.9.3).

The establishment of community took time and commitment from

participants to attend on a regular basis. By almost half way through the semester

participants appeared to be showing more confidence within the group. This was

157

evidenced by participants being able to publicly admit when they were wrong in their

thinking, such as when one participant admitted to being wrong by commenting

―that‘s what I thought,‖ even though they could just as easily have not said anything

at all (Section 5.4.3). This sharing of their thinking and feelings further supported the

growth of the sense of community. It also allowed others to see that they were not the

only one struggling (Section 4.2.2).

The level of social interaction was dependent on who was in attendance and

not on how many were there. This was particularly noticeable in Tutorial 4 where

there was an increase in student-to-student interaction in social support, though there

were only five in attendance (Section 5.4.3). Three of the five in attendance at that

tutorial were amongst the four most active contributors in the group overall (Section

5.10, in particular Tables 5.2, 5.5 and 5.8). It should also be noted that the four

participants who added most to overall interaction contributed prominently to both

social presence and cognitive presence throughout the semester (Section 5.10).

The combination of social interaction and teaching presence (facilitation)

increased engagement within the group (Section 5.4.3). As noted in Section 2.4.3,

teaching presence is a combination of design and organisation, facilitation and direct

instruction. Initially this involved setting up expectations of how the tutorial would

be managed, that is the expectation that participants would ask questions and offer

answers (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; see Section 5.2.3). Once participants became

more comfortable with the technology and realised its potential for interaction, they

exploited the affordances it provided for moving their learning forward. The teacher

facilitated a supportive atmosphere by answering questions seriously regardless of

the simplicity or complexity of the questions – all questions were valued to

encourage participants to engage. Even when someone was on the wrong track it was

important to be supportive in bringing them back in the right direction – facilitation

rather than direct instruction as much as possible. A supportive approach was even

more acutely necessary due to the lack of visual cues. It was also important for the

teacher to quickly acknowledge contributions in the Chat window, so that

participants would keep contributing in that way thus maximising the interaction and

collaboration taking place.

158

Interaction within the online tutorial was a shared responsibility which took

time to develop. Each participant contributed something to the tutorial such that they

were able to support one another and learn from one another (Section 6.4).

7.2.2 Interaction with content

The conscious act of setting aside time to participate in the tutorial each week meant

that participants were connecting with the content on a regular basis. Interaction with

the content required primarily a mix of teaching presence and cognitive presence.

Teaching presence in terms of design and organisation was necessary in the early

stages in selecting the content and method of presenting the content to maximise

interaction by all participants with the content (Shea et al., 2006). Content selected

for discussion in the online tutorials was closely aligned with content being taught in

regular classes during the semester of the study. Presenting the content mostly in the

form of multiple-choice questions allowed all participants to contribute to discussion

and the development of fully-formed answers regardless of whether they felt

confident about the topic or knew how to answer the question. The multiple-choices

provided the prompts for discussion of probable answers as well as opportunities for

identifying common pitfalls in thinking by considering the relative merits of the

distractors in such questions. This enhanced the collaborative problem-solving

process.

One aspect of understanding the content in an introductory statistics course

is familiarity with the terminology used – the language of statistics. This can present

quite a barrier to engaging with the content. The online synchronous tutorial gave

participants the opportunity to hear the terminology used correctly and to be guided

by the teacher in using the terminology correctly themselves (Sections 4.2.3 and

5.3.2).

Statistical content, as with most quantitative content, is hierarchical – to

understand material later in the course it is important to understand the earlier

content. This can also create barriers. Learning statistical content in a community of

learners with a content expert (teacher) allowed participants to have concepts

clarified and relationships amongst concepts explained as needed (Section 4.2.2). It

also allowed participants to verbalise their knowledge and seek confirmation that

their understanding was sound. The teacher using question/answer facilitation

fostered discussion. By modelling the thinking processes and problem-solving

159

techniques and, where necessary through direct instruction, the teacher supported

participants in their assimilation of the content (Section 2.4.3).

7.2.3 Technology affords interaction

It has been established that advances in communication technologies have changed

the ways in which teachers exploit technology in their teaching (Moore & Kearsley,

2005; also see Section 7.1). While the teacher in this study realised that using

multiple-choice questions to engage participants in interacting with the content

would be less threatening, it was not realised initially that using the Polling function

within Wimba would actually limit the interaction (Section 5.1.3). Using polling

meant that participants chose an option and discussion followed once the summary of

answers was displayed. By projecting multiple-choice questions on the virtual

whiteboard instead, participants were able to physically interact with the multiple-

choice questions, such as underlining keywords, and illustrate the problem-solving

process needed to arrive at an answer. In this way the answer was not paramount but

the process was. During this interaction the technology supported the phases of

cognitive presence (Garrison, 2007): the multiple-choice question was the triggering

event, underlining keywords signified exploration, discussing how those keywords

combined to lead to a solution denoted integration and selecting which option to pick

in the multiple choices demonstrated resolution (Section 2.4.2). The immediacy of

this collaborative environment, along with facilitation from the teacher (teaching

presence), allowed the participants to overcome the difficulties commonly faced in

asynchronous environments of progressing from the exploratory phase to integration

and resolution (Vaughn & Garrison, 2005).

Another aspect of the technology that maximised interaction was the

multiple inputs happening synchronously - voice, text chat and writing on the

whiteboard (Section 5.6.3). When one person was answering a question with voice,

others were adding to the explanation in text chat to support, while another was

writing on the whiteboard – collaborative activity increasing participation (Sections

5.6.3 and 5.8.3). In addition, when several people gave the same answer to a question

in the Chat window, it gave people the opportunity to see that others were thinking

the same way they were. Unlike asynchronous environments this mixture of voice,

text chat and writing on the virtual whiteboard added to the dynamics of the online

tutorial (Section 4.2.2). The virtual whiteboard added further to this process by

160

making it possible to value-add visually, with diagrams and formulae, to any

explanations using electronic handwriting (Figures 5.1 to 5.12). The availability of

the Chat window also added to building a sense of community as participants could

engage socially before the tutorial started while waiting for the teacher to complete

preliminary organisation (Section 5.5.1).

With no opportunity to ―see‖ if students were confused or comprehending

the explanation of a concept by the teacher, the Tick/Cross icon within Wimba

allowed a quick confirmation of understanding. This meant that the flow of

discussion was not interrupted and yet the teacher was still able to ascertain that the

discussion was producing the desired outcomes (Section 5.1.3).

7.3 Nature of the dialogue in the online tutorial

In addressing the second aim of the study, it was found that the main contributing

factors to the nature of the dialogue in the online tutorial included the affordances of

the technology, the presentation of the content and the development of the

community of learners across time. The interaction amongst these factors determined

how the dialogue developed, while the interplay amongst the three presences: social,

cognitive and teaching, informed understanding of this process.

In the online synchronous tutorial where there were no visual cues, dialogue

primarily developed between the teacher and participants at the instigation of the

teacher (teaching presence). Even though the dialogue was often one-to-one, in

essence it became one-to-many. The teacher in responding to a specific participant‘s

enquiry shared the response with the whole group. This dialogue was usually enacted

with the teacher using the microphone and the participant using text chat (primarily

cognitive presence). As a result, teacher utterances could be long and involved as

necessary but participants generally delivered short to the point messages. If and

when a participant had a longer more involved comment or question they would

generally use the microphone (Section 7.1). In this environment with no visual

prompt to project uncertainty, participants would indicate that they were unsure of

their contribution to furthering the discussion by finishing a comment with a question

mark. This type of comment was not a direct question but a shorthand way of saying

―I think it might be this‖ and indicated the desire to have their understanding

confirmed or their misunderstanding addressed (Section 5.6.3).

161

The content was mostly presented as multiple-choice questions on the

virtual whiteboard. In this way participants were prompted with possible responses

and thus in a position to enter into the conversation. By breaking down barriers this

type of question in this format fostered discussion about key concepts and

highlighted nuances in statistical language while minimising the possibility for

participants to feel uncomfortable about asking and answering questions. Scaffolding

the learning in this way assisted the students to be active participants in the learning

process (Bigge & Shermis, 1999).

In the early stages of community development social dialogue was

instigated by the teacher to ―break the ice‖ (Section 5.1.2). This social dialogue was

generally between the teacher and the group but over time as the sense of community

developed social dialogue from one participant to another occurred (social presence).

Since these interactions were in text chat, they were of necessity short and generally

indications of their support, one for another. Initially participants were reticent to

offer opinions of a cognitive nature and would only offer answers to questions when

asked directly. However, over time and with encouragement and support from the

teacher and the inclusive nature of the multiple-choice questions on the virtual

whiteboard, they gained in confidence to respond to the teacher and the group. This

confidence developed even further to a point where participants supported other

participants directly with added explanations and assistance using the Chat window,

while the teacher was otherwise occupied using the virtual whiteboard (Section

5.6.3).

7.4 Perception of the value of the online tutorial

Studying at a distance can be an isolating experience, even though there are benefits

such as the independence to study where and when one wants (Section 2.2). Even

though adult learners are viewed as being capable of self-directed learning which

includes self-management, self-monitoring and motivation, this may not produce the

desired outcomes without support and guidance (Garrison, 2003). In addressing the

third aim of this study, the perceived value of the online synchronous tutorial can be

summarised as providing this support and guidance.

Participants expressed preconceptions of the tutorial providing the

opportunity to be part of a community of learners where they would feel less

162

isolated. By making the commitment to connect to the interactive learning platform

weekly, it was believed that motivation would be maintained and it would be easier

to ―keep on track‖ and not fall behind (Section 4.1.5). Through shared responsibility,

participants believed that the online tutorial would bring with it differing viewpoints

and demonstrate different ways of thinking. The prospect of hearing a variety of

questions asked and answered was viewed as a benefit of participation – questions

that were of concern to them but asked by others as well as questions that they had

not even thought to ask. In this, an opportunity to build a relationship with the

teacher within a collaborative learning environment was exploited (Section 4.1.5). In

addition to this came the belief that the more content was discussed, the more

understanding would follow. These preconceptions persisted and by the end of the

semester they remained as contributors to the perceived value of the online tutorial

by the participants (Section 4.2.1).

Participants felt that it was beneficial to see the solutions to problems

developed in ―real time‖ and be able to ask questions for immediate feedback (the

teacher modelling the problem-solving process) and confirm their understanding

(Section 4.2.3). Being involved in the online tutorial brought life to their learning. In

the tutorial they could ascertain how they were progressing in their understanding

compared with others – the shared struggle. Hearing the teacher use the correct

terminology in context also contributed to greater understanding (Section 4.2.3).

It was perceived that the online synchronous tutorial felt like the

relationship with the teacher was one-on-one because of the high level of interaction

and the immediacy of the situation (Section 6.2). The teacher was seen as being an

important motivator, clarifying concepts and giving the big picture of how the topics

studied fitted together.

7.5 Teaching and learning statistical concepts online

Teaching and learning of statistical concepts involves the development of problem-

solving skills to apply these concepts appropriately in a variety of contexts. As a

social constructivist, Vygotsky advocated that social interaction was fundamental to

learning through shared problem-solving experiences (Section 2.1.1). The learner in

progressing from what is known to what needs to be known crosses what Vygotsky

called the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The teacher‘s role in this process

163

was to define the size of the ZPD and thus support successful transition by

scaffolding the learning in a social environment of collaboration. In this social

environment learners interacted with others through testing and challenging their

understandings (Bates & Poole, 2003).

This research study applied social constructivist principles to online

synchronous tutorials to provide a common ground for communication to enhance

mutual support amongst a group of students. Integral to this was support provided by

the teacher (teaching presence) through provision of content in a form that

encouraged interaction, facilitation of the interaction and direct instruction related to

key concepts required to progress understanding. To this end, participants were given

opportunities to participate in ―meaning making‖ in a collaborative non-threatening

learning environment where they were encouraged to ask questions, clarify concepts

taught, express ideas in their own words, and confirm understanding (Meyer & Land,

2005). Indicative of this type of support participants were assured that no question

was a silly question (Section 5.5.3).

Once a relationship was established within the group and the participants felt

confident and supported by the positive attitude of the teacher – that they were

encouraged and valued for asking questions – they demonstrated their preparedness

to contribute to discussion (Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3). Participants were encouraged

by comments from the teacher that getting an incorrect answer could be seen as a

positive outcome as it prompted discussion of the finer nuances in the wording of a

question. This attitude encouraged participants to contribute even if they didn‘t feel

confident with the answer that they had formulated (Section 5.4.2).

The learning of statistics required engagement with the language of statistics.

To assist with this, the teacher modelled the problem-solving process using

appropriate terminology. As a consequence participants were encouraged to engage

with this process in solving problems collaboratively on the virtual whiteboard. By

the end of the semester this activity amongst participants occurred with little

provocation from the teacher. The fostering of this team approach led to an

environment where participants supported one another both emotionally and

cognitively to achieve greater understanding.

Personal circumstances impacted on the level of commitment individual

participants could make to the online tutorials. During the semester a number of

164

participants experienced circumstances which prevented them from attending all of

the tutorials. It appeared that those who could make the commitment to participate

most of the time were those who engaged the most, both socially and cognitively.

However, the direction of the relationship between commitment to participate and

level of engagement in class is unclear. It may be that the commitment to participate

over a sustained period of time built the trust that led to a sense of community which

resulted in a community of inquiry. On the other hand it could be that participants

who were more outgoing in nature were also more prepared to commit to the weekly

appointment. Regardless, the development of social presence early in the semester

created the group cohesion which built confidence and in conjunction with the

immediacy of the synchronous situation fostered the collaborative learning

environment for cognitive presence to develop (Section 2.4).

7.5.1 A model of online synchronous learning

Interaction in distance learning has been modelled for a combination of

asynchronous and synchronous communication (Figure 2.2) and asynchronous online

communication (Figure 2.3). In addressing the fourth aim of this study, formulating

theoretical constructs pertaining to the teaching and learning of statistical concepts in

this environment, a model of online synchronous learning is proposed. Any model

incorporating the contribution that an online synchronous tutorial makes to the

learning of statistics should be learning-centred rather than learner-centred, one

where the focus is on learning and interaction (Anderson, 2008). At the centre of the

online synchronous tutorial is a dynamic process, the act of learning (see Figure 7.1).

The overarching feature of this model of online synchronous learning is the

affordance of the interactive online learning platform which creates an environment

where the action can take place (Section 2.3.2). This environment in turn interacts

with the act of learning through the participants (teacher and students) and their

engagement with the content to be learned. Within this environment the key elements

(student, teacher and content) interact with one another and the technology to

produce the learning in ―real time‖ by crossing the Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD). This is enabled by the mode of communication chosen – a mixture of voice,

text chat, writing on the virtual whiteboard and emoticons/icons – which allows the

teacher to scaffold the learning. In addition to this, the Community of Inquiry (CoI)

165

which includes teaching presence, social presence and cognitive presence is the

vehicle by which the act of learning can occur.

Figure 7.1. Model of online synchronous learning

Viewing the model as layers in an interactive process, the act of learning is at

the core of the process. The act of learning consists of collaboration amongst the

participants interacting with the content to produce the desired learning outcomes.

The inner layer surrounding the act of learning represents the ZPD which according

to the social constructivist theory of Vygotsky is traversed to allow the students to

move from a position of current knowledge to the formation of new knowledge at a

higher level (Section 2.1.1). This requires two-way interaction amongst the teacher,

the students and the content. This interaction forms the boundary between the inner

and outer layers of the model.

To arrive at the act of learning by passing through the ZPD a number of

factors come into play: mode of communication, scaffolding and the elements of the

Community of Inquiry. This outer layer of the model represents the components that

combine together to produce the interaction. Scaffolding by the teacher is closely

related to the teaching presence of the CoI. This scaffolding includes the selection of

the content, the form in which the content is presented and the facilitation of

166

discussion amongst the participants by the teacher. The interplay amongst the

elements of the CoI (teaching presence and social presence) provides the supportive

environment for productive discussion (cognitive presence) to take place (Section

2.4). In other words, teaching presence provides the scaffolding through the design

and organisation of the content, direct instruction where necessary, and facilitation of

the collaboration and interaction with students and content which moves students

through the ZPD to the cognitive presence of the act of learning. Social presence

influenced by the mode of communication interacts with the other presences to

initiate and maintain this act of learning. The synchronicity provided by technology

through the mode of communication (voice, text chat, writing on the virtual

whiteboard and emoticons/icons) promotes the dynamic nature of the act of learning

where several modes of communication can be occurring simultaneously.

In the specific context of this study, namely teaching introductory statistics in

an online synchronous tutorial, the application of this model is exemplified. The

affordance of the synchronous technology allowed the teacher, students and content

to interact within a community of inquiry in ―real time,‖ providing the benefits of

immediacy of explanation and feedback (Section 2.3.2). Using several modes of

communication (voice, text chat, writing on a virtual whiteboard and

emoticons/icons), often occurring at the same time, added to the dynamics of the

learning experience. Organisation of content in the form of multiple-choice questions

on the virtual whiteboard and consequent facilitation of discussion scaffolded

movement across the ZPD to the act of learning.

An integral part of this act of learning in relation to quantitative disciplines

such as statistics is the notion of problem-solving. The act of pulling the problem

apart, finding the keywords, linking these words to key concepts and then combining

the key concepts together in a way that leads to a solution lends itself well to

collaborative interaction in a community of inquiry. The immediacy of the online

synchronous environment means that the focus can be on action. This act of learning

is not only the construction of knowledge but the development of the problem-

solving skills to apply that knowledge.

167

7.6 Future directions

While this research study into the ―how‖ of the support provided by an online

synchronous tutorial to the learning of statistical concepts by distance students lacks

generalisability due to the specific circumstances surrounding the ―case‖ studied, it

nonetheless offers some insights for practice. As such, it begs the question: would

this approach provide similar outcomes in other quantitative courses and at other

than the introductory level?

The role of the tutor/teacher in this environment needs to be investigated in

more depth. Some participants in this study suggested the use of breakout rooms

where students in the online tutorial could break into smaller groups, discuss specific

content and then feed back to the whole group. This would take more time (for

people who already have limited time available) and would probably need to be quite

targeted. The organisational role of the tutor/teacher in such a scenario could provide

further insights into the contribution that synchronous communication makes to the

learning of quantitative content. How to optimise the impact of this type of

interaction needs further examination.

It could be argued that the level of support offered by an online synchronous

tutorial is unsustainable in the current economic climate within universities. In spite

of this, could this type of support succeed with a larger group of students? Could

lessons learned from this ―case‖ be applied to how asynchronous discussion forums

are operationalised? While asynchronous discussion forums lack immediacy, it

would be useful to investigate the impact of differing response times to different

types of questions posed by distance students in these forums and how this may

affect their motivation, engagement and satisfaction with a course of study.

With the rapid advances in communication technologies, humanisation of the

technology provides numerous avenues for further research with online synchronous

interaction being central to this.

7.7 Postscript

Distance students often feel isolated and overwhelmed. Because most are working

full-time and have family commitments, they find it difficult to find the right balance

between these and the requirements of their studies. When they are studying

unfamiliar content that they may not initially perceive as relevant to their program of

168

study, such as introductory statistics, it is not easy for them to stay motivated and ―on

track.‖ Course resources in the form of static content, as in text supported by

multimedia presentations, provide the core study materials. These are not always

satisfactory as they do not give students the opportunity to ask questions nor

verbalise their understanding to elicit confirmation. Asynchronous discussion forums

can fill this need but they do not provide the immediacy needed to quickly move

students on from ―stuck places‖ (Meyer & Land, 2005). In my experience,

quantitative content, such as introductory statistics, has a number of potential ―stuck

places.‖ Providing distance students with an opportunity to be involved in an online

synchronous tutorial, where they can interact with the content supported by a teacher

and fellow students in ―real time,‖ could provide the impetus to keep them engaged

with the content and the university. From my experience of this online synchronous

tutorial the sense of community took time to develop and the impact of the weekly

online tutorials was not fully realised until the last tutorial of the semester. It became

obvious in the revision tutorial, when the pressure of learning new content was

removed and confidence had grown, participants entered enthusiastically into the

spirit of collaborative learning with much less facilitation by me being necessary

(Section 5.9.3).

In recent years, I see more and more escalation of the massification of

education and with it the potential loss of purposeful and personal engagement with

our distance students. Because of our ever-increasingly busy lives, I understand why

distance students struggle to maintain motivation to keep up with the requirements of

their programs of study. The affordances of technology can dehumanise the

education of our distance students by providing limitless and sophisticated resources

for them to use or it can allow us to forge connections to produce interactive and

collaborative learning environments. While we have students who are prepared to put

aside the time to commit one hour a week to participate in an online synchronous

tutorial, I believe that we should take the opportunity to enrich their learning

experience.

169

References

Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson,

J.C., & Swan, K. (2009). A response to the review of the community of

inquiry framework. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 123-136.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry

over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and

integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12, 3-22.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2010). Understanding cognitive presence in an online

and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for

deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x

Akyol, Z., Garrison, R. D. & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Development of a community of

inquiry in online and blended learning contexts. Procedia Social and

Behavioural Sciences, 1, 1834-1838.

Anderson, T. (2003a). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent

developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson

(Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp.129-144). London: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Anderson, T. (2003b). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical

rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The

Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed., pp. 45-74). Athabasca, AL:

Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146

170

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-

97.

Anderson, T., & Kuskis, A. (2007). Modes of interaction. In M. G. Moore (Ed.),

Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 295-309). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

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.

Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P.,

Richardson, J. C., et al. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry

instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using

a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-

136.

Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does "teaching presence" exist in online MBA

courses? Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 9-21.

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers' social and

cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning &

Technology, 10(1), 42-66.

Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education (2nd ed.). New

York: Routledge.

Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher

education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-

559.

Bigge, M. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1999). Learning theories for teachers (6th ed.). New

York: Longman.

Brannon, R.F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication

tools in distance education. TechTrends, 45(1), 36-42.

171

Burnett, C. (2003). Learning to chat: Tutor participation in synchronous online chat.

Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 247-261.

Burr, L., & Spennemann, D. H. R. (2004). Patterns of user behavior in university

online forums. International Journal of Instructional Technology and

Distance Learning, 1(10), 11-18.

Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous

communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 20, 183-193.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross-Durant, A. (2001). John Dewey and lifelong education. In P. Jarvis (Ed.),

Twentieth century thinkers in adult & continuing education (2nd ed.).

London: Kogan Page.

Dennen, V. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting

discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1624-1633.

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis

schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A

review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6-28.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (rev. ed.). Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1940/1969). Education today. New York: Greenwood Press.

Everson, M. G., & Garfield, J. (2008). An innovative approach to teaching online

statistics courses. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 2(1).

Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2v6124xr

Freiermuth, M. R. (2002). Online chatting: An alternative approach to simulations.

Simulation & Gaming, 33(2), 187-195.

Galligan, L., Hobohm, C., & Loch, B. (2012). Tablet technology to facilitate

improved interaction and communication with students studying

mathematics at a distance. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and

Science Teaching, 31(4), 363-385.

172

Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st

century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review

of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2

Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G.

Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp.

161-168). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and

teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1),

61-72.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and

Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the

community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher

Education, 13(1-2), 5-9.

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry

framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher

Education, 10(3), 157-172.

Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2007). A theory of community of inquiry. In M. G.

Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (2nd ed., pp. 77-88).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in

online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance

Education, 19(3), 133.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting

methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and

reliability. Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1-8.

Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for

meaningful discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 36(1), 5-18.

173

Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Continuum.

Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 1-11.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global

online debate and development of an interaction analysis model for

examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing.

Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.

Gunawardena, C. N., & McIssac, M. S. (2004). Distance Education. In D. H.

Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and

technology (2nd ed., pp. 355-395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2009). Distance education in the digital age: Common

misconceptions and challenging tasks. Journal of Distance Education,

23(2), 105-122.

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in

an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-

152.

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.

Holmberg, B. (2007). A theory of teaching-learning conversations. In M. G. Moore

(Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp 69-75). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hrastinski, S. (2006). Introducing an informal synchronous medium in a distance

learning course: How is participation affected? Internet and Higher

Education, 9(2), 117-131.

Hrastinski, S., Keller, C., & Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design exemplars for

synchronous e-learning: A design theory approach. Computers & Education,

55(2), 652-662.

174

Hung, D. W. L., & Chen, D.-T. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and

learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the

design of web-based e-learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 3-

12.

Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking

behaviors: Underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade

performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 1-

28.

Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., Williams, J., & Donelan, H. (2012). Web conferencing for

synchronous online tutorials: Perspecives of tutors using a new medium.

Computers & Education, 58, 953-963. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.015

Knowles, M.S. (1950). Informal adult education. Chicago, IL: Association Press.

Knowles, M.S. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species (2nd ed.) Houston,

TX: Gulf Publishing.

Knowles, M.S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.) Houston, TX:

Gulf Publishing.

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: the

definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th

ed.). Burlington: Elsevier.

Kreiner, D. S. (2006). A mastery-based approach to teaching statistics online.

International Journal of Instructional Media, 33, 73-79.

Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N., & Garrison, J. (Eds.). (1998). Constructivism and

education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (2006). Qualitative research methods (2nd ed.).

Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Loch, B., & McDonald, C. (2007). Synchronous chat and electronic ink for distance

support in mathematics. Innovate - Journal of Online Education, 3(3).

Retrieved from http://innovateonline.info/

175

Mason, R. (2003). On-line learning and supporting students: New possibilities. In A.

Tait & R. Mills (Eds.), Rethinking learner support in distance education:

Change and continuity in an international context (pp. 90-101). London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Maurino, P. S. M. (2007). Online asynchronous threaded discussions: Good enough

to advance students through the proximal zone of Activity Theory?

TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 51(2), 46-

49.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult

learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-

14.

Merriam, S. B. (2004). The role of cognitive development in Mezirow's

transformational learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 60-68.

Meyer, K. A. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of

analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101-114.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge

(2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for

teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.

Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative

Education, 1(1), 58-63.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, J. D., & Raju, D. (2011). Teaching statistics online: A decade‘s review of the

literature about what works. Journal of Statistics Education, 19(2).

Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v19n2/mills.pdf

Mishler, E. G. (1991). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

176

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance

Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Moore, M. G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.),


Lawrence Erlbaum.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.).

Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Myers, S. C., Bishop, D., Rajaman, S. S., & Kelly, J. (2004). Virtual office hours:

Tutoring distance students in statistics and economics. Paper presented at

the OCDE Convergence of Libraries, Learning and Technology, Columbus,

Ohio. March.

Naidu, S., & Jarvela, S. (2006). Analyzing CMC content for what? Computers &

Education, 46(1), 96-103.

Peters, O. (2007). The most industrialized form of education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.),


Lawrence Erlbaum.

Piaget, J. (1969/1971). Science of education and the psychology of the child (D.

Coltman, Trans.). London: Longman.

Pogson, P. & Tennant, M. (1995). Understanding adults. In G. Foley (Ed.),

Understanding adult education and training (pp.20-30). St Leonards,

Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H.

Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and

technology (2nd ed., pp. 397-431). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis.

Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(1), 5-18.

Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities: A review of the

literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19-48.

Rubin, A. (2007). Much has changed; little has changed: Revisiting the role of

technology in statistics education 1992-2007. Technology Innovations in

177

Statistics Education, 1(1). Retrieved from

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/833239sw

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework

to foster ―epistemic engagement‖ and ―cognitive presence‖ in online

education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543-553.

Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student

sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college

courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Simonsen, L., & Banfield, J. (2006). Fostering mathematical discourse in online

asynchronous discussions: An analysis of instructor interventions. Journal

of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 41-75.

Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. New York: Random House.

Smith, G. G., & Ferguson, D. (2005). Student attrition in mathematics e-learning:

Growing pains of a new generation. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 21(3), 323-334.

Smith, W. A. (2001). E L Thorndike. In P. Jarvis (Ed.), Twentieth century thinkers in

adult & continuing education (2nd ed., pp. 77-93). London: Kogan Page.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, S.

M., et al. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a

community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 10(2), 103-115.

Suanpang, P., Petocz, P., & Kalceff, W. (2004). Student attitudes to learning business

statistics: Comparison of online and traditional methods. Educational

Technology & Society, 7(3), 9-20.

Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 119, 5-15.

Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Retrieved

from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html

178

Tishkovskaya, S., & Lancaster, G. A. (2012). Statistical education in the 21st century:

A review of challenges, teaching innovations and strategies for reform.

Journal of Statistics Education, 20(2), 1-55.

Thorndike, E. L. (1931/1968). Human Learning. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.

Twomey, P. (2009). Summit on the global agenda: On technology and innovation at

the world economic forum (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/globalagenda.pdf

Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, C., Maher, M. W., & Matthews, H. R. (2003). A

study comparing traditional and hybrid internet-based instruction in introductory

statistics classes. Journal of Statistics Education, 11(3). Retrieved from

http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v11n3/utts.html

Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended

faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1-12.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American

Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/globalagenda.pdf

179

Appendices

Appendix A: Initial survey questions

Appendix B: Weekly research questions

Appendix C: Final interview questions

180

Appendix A

Initial survey questions:

1. Write a few words expressing how you feel about studying Data Analysis?

2. How do you think your past experiences in mathematics might affect your

learning in this subject?

3. Do you use the discussion group facility in Moodle? If so, in what courses

have you used it?

4. Have you participated in communicating with tutors and/or students online in

any other courses (e.g. MSN Messenger, Skype, Wimba, etc.), where all of

you have been connected to the internet at the same time? If so, which

courses, who was involved (a group of students only, a group of students and

a tutor, or just you and a tutor), what software was used and when did this

happen?

5. What made you decide to participate in the online tutorial in Data Analysis?

181

Appendix B

Weekly research questions (tutorial in which question was asked):

1. The content covered last week was (all tutorials)

a. too easy

b. nothing new

c. nothing new but helpful

d. thought provoking

e. confusing

f. just right

g. too hard

2. What was the most important thing you go out of last week‘s tutorial? (all

tutorials)

3. How do you feel about the online tutorial environment? (Tutorial 2)

4. How are you feeling about Data Analysis at this point in time? (Tutorials 3,

6, 7, 8, R)

a. still worried

b. getting on top of it

c. struggling

d. enjoying it

e. hating it

f. all good

5. Which topic have you found most challenging so far? (Tutorials 4, 7, 8)

a. Types of variables and graphs

b. Contingency tables and conditional distributions

c. Normal models

182

d. Experiments, observational studies and sampling

e. Regression and correlation

f. Binomial models and probability

g. Sampling distributions

h. Hypothesis testing and confidence intervals

i. Nothing has been particularly challenging so far

6. Why did you choose to participate in the online tute? (Tutorial R)

7. In what way did the online tute contribute to your learning of Data Analysis?

(R)

183

Appendix C

Final interview key questions and prompts:

A. Demographic information

1. What is your approximate age? (five-year range was requested, however

all participants gave an exact age in years).

2. What is your program of study?

3. How many courses have you completed prior to this semester?

4. How far along are you in your program of study?

5. What is your employment/study status? (full-time, part-time etc)

6. What sort of family commitments do you have that may impact your

studies?

B. Questions related to research question and aims

1. Did you have any online experiences with your previous courses and what

sort of experiences were they? Discussion forums? Wimba?

2. Would you like to have a Wimba class in any future courses that you

undertake?

3. Why did you decide to participate in this study?

4. Which medium did you prefer for communications, text chat or

microphone? What were the advantages/disadvantages of this medium?

Using icons?

5. How did you feel about communicating in the online environment,

Wimba?

6. Did you interact with any other students in the research group outside the

online tutorial? If you didn‘t, would you have liked to?

7. Did you use the archives of the online sessions? If so, how did you use

them?

184

8. How do you think the other participants contributed to the process and

your experience of the online tutorial?

9. Do you think that the tutorial discussion could have proceeded without

the tutor being present? In what way?

10. How did the online tutorial help you with your learning of Data Analysis?

11. Do you have anything to add?

The final interviews were semi-structured and conducted in a conversational style to

maintain rapport between the researcher and the participant. As such, questions were

not always asked in the order given above. It should be noted that participants were

initially reminded that they could pass on a question at any stage in the interview.

EVALUATING THE USE OF ONLINE SYNCHRONOUS … · 2013. 11. 29. · This research study ......

Documents

Transcript of EVALUATING THE USE OF ONLINE SYNCHRONOUS … · 2013. 11. 29. · This research study ......