OMDE 610OMDE 610--9040 Study Group 29040 Study Group 2Benjamin Benjamin ArahArah, Yael Davis, Brenda Ledford, , Yael Davis, Brenda Ledford,

Kerstin Sewell, and Lisa WeaverKerstin Sewell, and Lisa Weaver

In Pursuit of a LearnerIn Pursuit of a Learner--CenteredCenteredFramework in EFramework in E--LearningLearning

2

In Pursuit of a LearnerIn Pursuit of a Learner--CenteredCenteredFramework in EFramework in E--Learning AgendaLearning Agenda

Overcoming Instructor Resistance to Online Pedagogy

The Deconstruction of Online Teaching

Understanding the Affective Domain in Distance Education Teaching and Learning

Effectiveness of Participation in a Collaborative Environment

Bringing Familiarity to Online Discussion

3

Overcoming Instructor Resistance toOvercoming Instructor Resistance toOnline PedagogyOnline PedagogySeveral journal authors have developed suggestions for instructors to overcome resistance to online pedagogy:

"1) start simple, 2) focus on learning rather than teaching,

3) get to know your students, 4) teach students proper netiquette,

5) pay attention to questions, tone of responses, 6) test course before teaching it, &

7) use a variety of assessments" (Distance Education Report).

Additionally, a recurring theme to instructor resistance is a faculty fear of the online delivery format, including the technology involved in distance education. Nevertheless, with the creation of "a sense of community" (Covington, et al.), faculty can push down barriers to non-traditional pedagogy. Some of those said barriers, according to Adria and Rose include: a "concern with losing autonomy and control over teaching and learning; fear of being displaced, and (once again) fears with technology." Finally, Jones et al. have agreed that an "acceptance of online pedagogy" can be achieved when "the value of distance education (is) communicated more effectively to faculty," and when faculty agree "upon a standard measurement of student success," such as the Capabilities-Based Educational Equivalency Model. Also, Jones et al. believe that "faculty tenure and academic rank has an effect on their opinion of DE," along with "suddenly (having to) face a large, diverse group of students," which may require more preparation time than traditional courses.

The study group agree that faculty resistance to a distance education pedagogy can be overcome with preparation, proper support from institution administrators, and an understanding that course instruction "drives education and not the technology that mediate it" (Jones et al.). Finally, it is generally agreed that distance education instructors need to "be able to re-learn their teaching philosophies so as to adopt the online approach that is more student-centered."

4

The Deconstruction of Online TeachingThe Deconstruction of Online Teaching

The topic of an online deconstruction has to do with the issue of how to reinvent it as an effective instructional tool for a quality educational pedagogy, and it is an acknowledgment of the technological changes on traditional teaching practices that require a new kind of approach for the online teaching and learning. Taylor & Maor (2000) insisted that any deconstruction of online teaching essentially has to do with communication competencies for the new epistemology to flourish, and instructors must re-learn how to be and begin to see themselves as students in this new era of interactive information technology. Thus, they maintained that social constructivism has a large impact in online teaching practices based on interactive relationship with the learners in ways that can positively affect (a) the willingness to learn from others,(b) commitment to active learning, and (c) inquiry into the ideas of others. But Zane Berge (1998) approached the phenomenon from several angles as follows: situational, social, cultural, technical or technological, psychological, philosophical, and epistemological. He went on to state explicitly that institutional policy toward online instruction or pedagogy is the catalyst for a meaningful change in the online culture and attitude, because it is with such a policy that instructors become apprehensive to their specific teaching responsibilities. Institutional policy is important, because it wouldenable the institution to set its academic standards based on its mission goals, beliefs, values and that any teaching deviation from the set parameters could result in poor performance and recrimination.

What ingredients make an effective online instructor, one in which learners enjoy acquiring knowledge from and participating with in the course?

Taylor and Maor (2000) believe that social constructivism has a large impact in online teaching practices, as does a competency for communicating with online learners. Berge (1998), on the other hand, has actually categorized online pedagogy into eight areas. Of course, as Berge acknowledges, institutional policy toward online instruction or pedagogy is the catalyst for "a change (in) institutional culture."

5

The Deconstruction of Online TeachingThe Deconstruction of Online Teaching(Continued)(Continued)

Finally, an online instructor's approach to pedagogy must take into consideration learner participation habits and activities, learning style preferences, online assessments, and learning communities (Gayton and McEwen), among other things.

Recent distance education research has stressed that online instructors must encourage participation from learners. "Teacher presence" (Blignaut and Trollip) also has an impact on online participation, as do opportunities for interaction, collaborative activities, and the careful planning, designing, and preparation of course materials even before the online course commences. This requires online instructors to "look inward and reflectively think deeply about one's own teaching practices (Wolcott, 1995). Indeed, Wolcott goes on to state that the online instructor or practitioner "tries to make sense out of an uncertain or divergent situation by questioning assumptions, reframing the problem, and constructing and testing new approaches" (p. 2) to the issue of online pedagogy.

The topic of deconstructing online pedagogy must also examine the issue of "effective assessment" in distance education. In fact, "online assessment involves a more 'ongoing, systematic approach'" (Robles and Braathen, 2002, In Gayton and McEwen, 2007, p. 119). Techniques include: 1)"development of realistic scenarios for learning; alignment of learning objectives with realistic scenarios; and delivery of on-site, instructor-based training responsive to individual student learning differences" (p. 119).

All in all, online teaching can be deconstructed and made more effective, successful and intellectually rewarding via active learner participation, interactive communication and collaborative learning enterprises; careful course designing and planning as well as a thoughtful or systematic presentation of the subject matter. L. Wolcott (1995) suggested that these can be done when the online instructor begins to look more inwardly and become deeply reflectively about one’s own teaching practices, and even more so tries to make sense out of the uncertain or divergent situation that could threaten the online learning environment with the ability or vision to question assumptions, refraining the problem, constructing and testing new approaches. And with all of these in mind, for any online instruction to be truly effective and productive, Gayton &McEwen(2007) recommended that instructors pay attention and give due consideration to the learner’s participation habits, preferences and learning styles to make good use of both online communities and assessments

6

Understanding the Affective Domain in Understanding the Affective Domain in Distance Education Teaching and LearningDistance Education Teaching and Learning

Affective domain and motivation. As learners encounter new content and situations that are inconsistent with current understanding, the response can be to eliminate the inconsistency by:

• Maintaining original attitude • Targeting the inconsistency • Going through the behavior with no commitment • Reducing the importance of behavior (Harmon-Jones)

Such actions for apparent reasons challenge the instructional process. This elimination factor may also be present in instructors who do not fully adopt DE pedagogy when engaging in online instruction.

The group continued with a look at how online pedagogy can adapt to meet the affective needs of learners. Factors such as creativity, imagery, teaching strategies, learning styles and intellectual dimension were discussed with respect to customizing delivery toward learner characteristics. Additionally, selecting appropriate affective pedagogical cues (visual, image, color, graphs, sound, and phraseology) can influence a learners affective response in a way that fosters learning. (Stammen & Schidt)

Social presence was seen as a factor that contributes to the Affective Domain in DE mediated interaction. Social presence exists along side of cognitive and teaching presence to maximize emotional expression, open communication and group cohesion. Emotional expression incorporates affective responses through conveyance of humor and self-disclosure through emoticon usage. Cohesive responses involve the learner interaction that builds and sustains a group’s sense of community. While open communication directly targets a learner’s response to discussion topics and peers. (Tu, Russo & Benson)

The group concluded with a look at Krathwohl’s taxonomy and the concept of internalization. Internalization refers to the process of personal affect involving an object through the stages of awareness through guiding impact on personal behavior. (Sherry, Cronje, Rauscher & Obermeyer)

7

The study group believes that by following the findings of Bullen and Stacey, online instructors can engage in constructive practice rooted in theory and instructional design and promote effectiveness. Learner characteristics (including motivation) is key in determining effective participation. Because someone is not participating doesn't necessarily mean that they are not learning. Instructors can assess if these students are learning by the reflections on their written assignments, surveys, assessments, and other tools that can measure learning.

Effectiveness of Participation in aEffectiveness of Participation in aCollaborative EnvironmentCollaborative EnvironmentThe group determined that the Bullen (1998) study, was able to determine and conclude why some students were able to become more active than others due to various learning styles or preferences as well as the individual personality. Some students were more comfortable doing the online learning than others, and such students had the inherent dispositional ability to become more vocal or active than those with different feelings or qualities. Normally, students have different personality traits: some may be introverts and other extroverts, and we should expect the outgoing students to be more active and engaging than others. We may exclude those who may just be both noisy and loud without any substance, and there are those who may have the penchant for seeking attention and asking to be noticed. With adequate preparation, it is hoped that students can effectively participate in collaborative online learning.

The group reflected on an article by Elizabeth Stacey in which it approached effectiveness by examining the collaborative learning environment and gauging the characteristics of effectiveness. The author believed that research drives the “theoretical rationale” for understanding online participation effectiveness (Stacey, 1999, p. 2). Stacey also demonstrated the significant of research to this effect by highlighting significant research that helps to define effective participation guided by Constructivism in its various frameworks. Some of the significant points that contribute to effectiveness were the “social, affective and cognitive benefits” of collaborative interaction (p. 2). Some researchers named collaborative learning as a framework for effective participation/interaction ; while others see it as a strategy (p. 3). This author quotes Kanuka and Anderson that social constructivism is “the most accepted” epistemology for effectiveness (p. 3). Overall this authors main point comes down to her definition of effectiveness and the three points that make it conducive to fostering the construction of knowledge and understanding. The environment must provide: 1) a means for constructing knowledge, 2) a means for dialogue among a community of learners, and 3) must have a defines purpose for interaction.

8

Bringing Familiarity to Online DiscussionBringing Familiarity to Online Discussion

The discussion was initiated with a look at how familiarity relates to social presence with respect to fostering familiarity. Tu & McIsaac named two components of social presence: intimacy and immediacy. Intimacy was found to be connected to the discussion topic and proximity. While immediacy involved the perceived psychological distance conveyed by verbal or nonverbal cues. Additionally the use of the telephone as a tool for fostering familiarity in reducing transactional distance to achieve familiarity. The study indicated that one tool, such as the telephone, is insufficient in and of itself to foster the level of familiarity desired and that the perceived satisfaction and achievement of students can be negatively impacted. One group member brought to the discussion personal insight that contradicted this study. He revealed that his use of telephone interaction definitely creates the sense of intimacy he sees and experiences in his traditional classroom environment.

The discussion evolved to include a tripartite framework for familiarity that included cognitive, teaching and social presence. Social presence was seen as including both cognitive and affective objectives that promote critical thinking and interaction . This reaches back to the affective domain. It was pointed out that social presence is paramount to success in a collaborative environment and the use of emoticons can represent moods, feelings and emotions . Interestingly enough it was also indicated that the exchange of personal information among participants can foster social presence and promote a sense of community.

The discussion on social presence seemed to culminate with the revelation that participants within the online learning community are eager for social relationships and the tool of choice for such construction seems to be asynchronous communication. However, the online relationships are constructed in similar manner as traditional learning environments but at an obviously alternate pace. This research connected the building of social presence with the role of the instructor in nurturing affective responses through interaction. This type of guided interaction was termed “contextualizing”. This information connected with the teaching presence mentioned as a framework above.

The discussion closed with a reverberation of tactics that can be utilized by both teachers and learners within the online learning environment: the use of first names, directing discussion threads toward overall objectives and fostering interaction. The use of chat was seen as way to anchor the social presence among a group and encourage familiarity.

9

ConclusionConclusion

In conclusion, Study Group 2 has discussed key topics that contribute to a learner-centered framework in e-learning. Instructors can overcome resistance and accept contemporary learner-centered pedagogy if perceived value aligns with foundational planning and training efforts. Once resistance has been overcome, the learner-centered framework guides instructors toward effective teaching through influential factors such as institutional policy, instructional style and practice, and an increased awareness of learner characteristics. Despite efforts toward smooth implementation, challenges arise concerning a learner’s “affective” needs, social presence and the internalization process.

Effective participation can alleviate many of the “affective” concerns through purposeful application of research-based theory such as social constructivism, and an instructor’s attention to evaluation and assessment. Effective participation can further be fostered by increasing familiarity. The instructor’s role is paramount in guiding learner responses and nurturing a sense of presence. Overall attention to the details of a learner-centered framework will contribute to best practices in e-learning teaching and learning environments.

10

ReferencesReferences

Advice for instructors making the transition to online instruction. (2005, November 15). Distance Education Report , 9(22), 5-6. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database (AN18867682).

Berge, Z. L. (1998, Summer). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions: Can policy change fix it? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(2). State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center.

Retrieved October 7, 2007 from http://nurs.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer12/berge12.pdfBlignaut, S., & Trollip, S.R. (2003, September). Developing taxonomy of faculty participation in asynchronous learning

environments – an exploratory investigation. Computers & Education, 41(2), 149-172. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from Science Direct database.

Bonk, C.J., & Zhang, K. (2006, August). Introducing the r2d2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), pp. 249-264. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database (AN21806764).

Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2). Retrieved October 7, 2007, from http://cade.icaap.org/vol13.2/bullen.html

Covington, D., Patherbridge, D., & Warren, S.E. (2005, Spring). Best practices:Triangulated support approach in transitioning faculty to online teaching. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1). State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center.

Dewiyanti S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W. & Broers, N.J (2007) Students’ experiences with collaborative learning is asynchronous computer supported collaborative learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 496-514.

Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment. Computer conferencing in higher education. Unpublished manuscript.

Gayton, J. & McEwen, B. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(3), 117-132.

11

References (Continued)References (Continued)

Harmon-Jones, E. (2000). The role of affect in cognitive-dissonance processes. In (Forgas, J.P. (Ed.), Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition (pp. 238-251). Mahwah, New Jersey-Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved October 7, 2007, from Net Library database.

Jones, E.T., Lindner, J.R., Murphy, T.H., & Dooley, K.E. (2002, Spring). Faculty philosophical position towards distance education: Competency, value, and educational technology support. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(1). Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/- distance/ojdla/spring51/jones51.html

Ke, F., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2006). Solitary learner in online collaborative learning a disappointing experience? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(3), 249-265. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database.

Michinov, E. & Michinov, N. (2007). Identifying a transition period at the midpoint of an online collaborative activity: a study among adult learners. Computers in Human Behavior 23, 355-1371.

O’Leary, P. F. & Quinlan, T.J. Jr. (2007). Learner-instructor telephone interaction: Effects on satisfaction and achievement of online students. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 133-143.

Russo, T. C. and Benson, S. (2003, May). Learning with invisible others: Online presence and its relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott Hotel, San Diego, CA.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing. Journal of Distance Education. Retrieved 10/17/2007, from http://cade.icaap.org/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html

Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facilitating interpersonal interaction and learning online: Linking theory and practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(2), 128-136. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database (AN21449191).

12

References (ContinuedReferences (Continued -- 2)2)

Sherry, L., Cronje, J., Rauscher, W. & Obermeyer, G. (2005). Mediated Conversations and the affective domain: Two case studies. International Journal of E-learning, 4(2), 177-190.

Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education 14(2). Retrieved October 7, 2007, from http://cade.icaap.org/vol14.2/stacey.html

Stacey, E. (2002). Social presence online: networking learners at a distance. Education and Information Technologies. 7(4), 287-294.

Stammen, R.M., & Schidt, M.A. (2001, November). Basic understandings for developing distance education for online instructors. NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 47-50. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from UMUC Document Express Services.

Taylor, P. & Maor, D. ( 2000). Assessing the efficacy of online teaching with the constructivist on-line learning environment survey. In A. Herrmann & M. M. Kulski, (Eds.), Flexible Futures in Tertiary Teaching: Proceedings of the 9th Annual

Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved October 7, 2007, from

http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/taylor.html

The challenge of teaching across generations. (2006, March). Online Classroom, 2-8. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database (AN19887564).

Tu, C. & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.

Wolcott, L. (1995). The distance teacher as reflective practitioner. Educational Technology 35(1), 39-43.