Portfolio task 2:
Roles and rules for either online discussions or online chats (500 words, Salmon, Mazzareli etc.)
DRAFT
Roles and rules for online discussions
There are many factors that influence online discussions used in higher education. These need to be taken into account before developing roles and rules for online discussions.
I am a design teacher and it is from this point of view of initiating online discussions with my students that I will be understanding roles and developing a framework of rules. While most roles and rules will be common to all discussions there may be some aspects which would be specific for design.
The role a teacher in an online forum would be the role the teacher needs to take on for learning to happen in an e-learning environment. She is responsible for the design, organization, facilitation, moderation, instruction, management, of ‘the cognitive and social processes’ so that meaningful and in depth learning occurs. In e-learning, the teacher is responsible for the structure of the learning event, its management, design and organization, building understanding and direct instruction’ (G&A, p 31).’
As a teacher, I have an important role in establishing social presence. “Setting the right tone at the right time. The tone may range from nurturing and emotionally supportive to questioning and analytical. The tone of the conversation should correspond with cogntive presence issues and goals.” (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p 80) I would take on the role of facilitator, guide, challenger, moderator, etc. at appropriate moments. As a teacher, in an online discussion, I would encourage students to
· Freely express themselves,
· Retain control and independence.
I would be welcoming and try and build trust. With my comments I would encourage, acknowledge, challenge, question, facilitate, moderate, give feedback.
e.g. Encourage students to take part in the online discussion.
During the online discussion I would initiate and encourage communication which is affective, open and cohesive.
I would encourage students to
· Listen to one another with respect
· Build on one another’s ideas
· Challenge and question each other
· Critique supported with reasons
· Assist each other to identify assumptions
· Express their feelings
· Promote a safe feeling
· Become more responsible for own learning.
Establishing relationships and a sense of belonging is important in the online discussion. This is needed build up for a meaningful discussion. Too much politeness can also hinder a meaningful discussion so there needs be an atmosphere where people can question, probe and challenge.
Online discussions can be of many kinds and so would be the rules for each kind of discussion.
Online text synchronous discussion
· Read up on the topic in advance before the discussion.
· Record the discussion
· Ensure you do not have interruptions during the discussion, though this is not so crucial.
Online video conference
· Ensure you know how to join the conference- your computer should be appropriately configured. Join the conference before time to account for eventualities.
· Learn the system for participating in turn.
· Encourage, acknowledge, question, challenge,
· Try affective, open and cohesive communication.
· Communicate clearly, asking relevant permissions to start of a thread, indicate the end of a thread.
· Sign off clearly
· Come prepared with outline, questions, etc.
· Take notes during the discussion
· Have a prior discussion with participants, organize yourself for it, set the date and time well in advance. Send a reminder.
· Ensure no interruptions.
Online audio conference
· Have a prior discussion with participants, organize yourself for it, set the date and time well in advance. Communicate date and time for conference.Send a reminder. Confirm participation a few hours before scheduled time to start.
· Ensure you know how to join the conference- your computer should be appropriately configured. Join the conference before time to account for eventualities.
· Come prepared.
· Learn the system for participating in turn.
· Encourage, acknowledge, question, challenge,
· Try affective, open and cohesive communication.
· Communicate clearly, asking relevant permissions to start of a thread, indicate the end of a thread.
· Sign off clearly
· Come prepared with outline, questions, etc.
· Take notes during the discussion
· Ensure no interruptions.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Portfolio task 3: draft
How might you go about establishing social presence in a group activity?
What does social presence mean in an e-learning environment? Social presence is defined as “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real’ people. (i.e. their full personality), through the medium of communication being used” (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 2000: 94, from Elin the TC, p 49)
In a face to face classroom experience, it is normal for students and teachers to establish relationships through proximity, meeting face to face everyday, sitting together, exchanging greetings, smiles, jokes, body language and simple eye contact. Every action has the rest of the class as audience or participant. A common vocabulary of experiences knits the group together into a learning community. Bringing the same range of experiences into play is just not possible in any online scenario. Interaction is limited to using words and images and that too in an asynchronous mode. With limited means of interaction, it becomes quite a challenge to establish relationships student-student, and student-teacher.
Group behaviour has been studied and according to Garrison and Anderson, Tuckman postulates five stages for group activity. These are according to him: “ Forming (group formation), storming (conflicts), norming (resolution), performing and adjourning (closing).” Educationally Pratt simplifies this to “ the beginning, middle and ending phases.’ Social presence would be established in each of these phases.
To establish a learning community and practice collaborative learning seems all the more difficult.
When traditional distance learning was conceived the importance of a learning community was not understood. The student learning at a distance was expected to learn alone. “Community is integral to all aspects of life. It is the fusion of the individual and the group; the psychological and sociological; the reflective and the collaborative. This is no less so from a learning or educational perspective. This implicit denial of community has been the greatest shortcoming of traditional distance education with its emphasis on prescriptive course packages to be assimilated by the student in isolation. Unfortunately this is based upon an assumption that learning is an individual experience and that there is little need to negotiate meaning and confirm understanding. Education and learning in its best sense is a collaboration, which includes a sense of belonging and acceptance in a group with common interests.” (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p49)
In a group activity that I plan for an online group who have not met face to face I would look for ways to do the following:
· Welcome the students
· Establish trust
· Develop the sense of being a group learning together
· Provide students with freedom of expression, control and independence
· In my comments provide encouragement, acknowledgement, accomplishment, challenge, questioning
· Keep the tone conversational
As a teacher, I have an important role in establishing social presence. “ Setting the right tone at the right time. The tone may range from nurturing and emotionally supportive to questioning and analytical. The tone of the conversation should correspond with cogntive presence issues and goals.” (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p 80) I would take on the role of facilitator, guide, challenger, moderator, etc. at appropriate moments.
“ Preparation for the first session is important in any educational experience but crucial in an e-learning context.” (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p 80)
If the group is going to do many activities together, like in this e-learning module, I could start with an activity so that all the members could introduce themselves to each other. e.g. filling in template of a profile page. This page would ask for preferences like favourite books, movies, music, etc. These would be things that no one would feel threatened to reveal but could develop further online conversations with members of the group. I would start with completely filling in a profile page for myself.
If the activity is a one time blog discussion, such elaborate introduction is not needed. Rather, requesting the members to briefly introduce themselves as they participate in the discussion would be sufficient. “ Establishing social presence is not a one time activity.” ( Garrison and Andeson, 2003, p 80)
In a programme, I would take the interaction further by introducing an activity that would establish a cultural context of each participant without getting too personal e.g. Asking dividing the group into smaller groups of 4 to get together and share the view from their windows! This could be interpreted as a metaphor or taken literally and the discussion would ensue. Pictures would be allowed. In addition participants would be asked to write a small paragraph about the view. The two-words and visuals communicate differently, while the pictures give you the physical scene and context, words would give a path into the participants’ mind. ‘the characteristics of a text medium as being reflective, explicit and precise may well have inherent advantages in focusing and elevating the cognitive level of exchange.’ (Garrison and Anderson).
There are many online ‘medium’s of exchange- chat, a threaded discussion, email, software like facebook, etc. I would set out the discussion as a blog. This is easily available, accessible and inexpensive. This could be the main medium for communication. I don’t think I could stop other mediums from being used. Email would be my supportive medium. I, as a teacher could use both as the circumstances demanded it. I would contribute to the blog discussion. When someone is not interacting, I could call them via email to find out what’s happening.
How do you establish social presence in e-learning, when you are limited to exchanging words and visuals only, asynchronously?
Garrison and Anderson argue that ‘the characteristics of a text medium as being reflective, explicit and precise may well have inherent advantages in focusing and elevating the cognitive level of exchange.’ This may be an advantage over face-to-face interaction. Research ‘conducted on text based e-learning has consistently demonstrated a capacity for high level of socio-emotional interpersonal communication (Rourke et al. 1999).
Garrison and Anderson have classified social presence into three levels of indicators which grow from one level to the next. These are:
1. Affective communication
2. Open communication
3. Cohesive communication.
1. Affective communication expresses emotions and interest, etc.
This communication lays the base for a deeper exchange. This communication expresses respect, encouragement, support, trust, and tries to touch the other participants. This is usually done in three ways:
· Simply expressing feelings with words. This includes the use of humour, teasing and simply unchallenging, safe communication which promotes goodwill.
· Typographically expressed emotion e.g. Emoticons, punctuations and use of capital letters provide the equivalent of vocal intonations in normal text. Text is re-presented in changed typographic specifications of size, boldness, emphasis, etc. to communicate the feelings and emotions behind the words. e.g. “waaaiiiting to hear from you”
· Through self-disclosure. This specially builds trust. “The concert on Friday night was good but too long for an old girl like me. London was quiet compared to a normal weekday but I liked it that way.............what did everybody else get up to over the holiday week-end?”
2. Open communication is ‘respectful’ and ‘reciprocal’ showing respect, trust and acceptance and thus encouraging participation and reflection. This forms the base for meaningful exchange. Open communication is built through expression of agreement, recognition, acknowledgement, complimenting, and can move on to ‘questioning the substances of messages’ transforming the interaction to a meaningful discussion. Much of e-learning falls into this level of social presence.
Open communication happens when someone
· ‘continues a thread.’ This can be done automatically through software like in an email. e.g. ‘Subject: Re…….’ ;
· Responds to, takes from and refers to others
· Asks questions
· Appreciates another’s contribution
e.g. Hi I have finally found a computer which allows me to edit the page. I have uploaded two new photographs Sumita if you wouldn't mind adding. I have included one of a moon as per conversation and One of myself as per request. I think these photographs will be okay.Thanks for the formatting Sumita it is looking good. Wil be at a computer that works tomorrow early pm if you want more doing.Anne
4. Cohesive communication: Contributes to forming the identity of the group. This is important to ‘sustain the commitment and purpose of a community of inquiry.’ This is evidenced when a participant is referred to by name, brought into the discussion, acknowledged, this communication links it to the rest of the discussion, too. Inclusive pronouns like ‘we’, ‘let us’, ‘our’ recognize and emphasize the group and its reason to be together. The ‘meaningless’ salutations like, Dear All…etc. further build group cohesion.
e.g. Dear allIm now up and running..technology back in place. I have uploaded my Facebook profile picture as this is one(online) window into my life. Formatting looks excellent and the pictures are looking good too. Angie
e.g. HI all, I have done a few more things on the wiki page. This is an invitation to delete, replace, comment, change anything on the page. You can ask me to do it in case you do not know how to. Anne, I tried rescuing your image but could not.YOurs Sumita
Social presence has to be set up at a level that it encourages discussion and fulfills the purpose of the group discourse and become a ‘meaningful educational experience’- it should not be too polite and superficial or aggressive and so inhibiting frank expression.
The greatest need is to maintain social presence so as to create a ‘cognitively stimulating and productive learning experience.’
The teacher or moderator plays an important role in setting the tone of the discussion. The teacher must make each student feel welcome and relevant part of the group. Again, as in a classroom, the quiet student has to be coaxed out of her silence, so also with the non-contributing members of the group. The environment must feel secure and conducive to expression to be ‘intellectually productive’ and stimulating.
The teacher must be encouraging, sensitive, yet challenging, considerate, draw out students, intellectually stimulating comments which expect the same from the students,
Establishing social presence leads to the next level of interaction in an e-learning community – that of establishing cognitive presence.
How might you go about establishing social presence in a group activity?
What does social presence mean in an e-learning environment? Social presence is defined as “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real’ people. (i.e. their full personality), through the medium of communication being used” (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 2000: 94, from Elin the TC, p 49)
In a face to face classroom experience, it is normal for students and teachers to establish relationships through proximity, meeting face to face everyday, sitting together, exchanging greetings, smiles, jokes, body language and simple eye contact. Every action has the rest of the class as audience or participant. A common vocabulary of experiences knits the group together into a learning community. Bringing the same range of experiences into play is just not possible in any online scenario. Interaction is limited to using words and images and that too in an asynchronous mode. With limited means of interaction, it becomes quite a challenge to establish relationships student-student, and student-teacher.
Group behaviour has been studied and according to Garrison and Anderson, Tuckman postulates five stages for group activity. These are according to him: “ Forming (group formation), storming (conflicts), norming (resolution), performing and adjourning (closing).” Educationally Pratt simplifies this to “ the beginning, middle and ending phases.’ Social presence would be established in each of these phases.
To establish a learning community and practice collaborative learning seems all the more difficult.
When traditional distance learning was conceived the importance of a learning community was not understood. The student learning at a distance was expected to learn alone. “Community is integral to all aspects of life. It is the fusion of the individual and the group; the psychological and sociological; the reflective and the collaborative. This is no less so from a learning or educational perspective. This implicit denial of community has been the greatest shortcoming of traditional distance education with its emphasis on prescriptive course packages to be assimilated by the student in isolation. Unfortunately this is based upon an assumption that learning is an individual experience and that there is little need to negotiate meaning and confirm understanding. Education and learning in its best sense is a collaboration, which includes a sense of belonging and acceptance in a group with common interests.” (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p49)
In a group activity that I plan for an online group who have not met face to face I would look for ways to do the following:
· Welcome the students
· Establish trust
· Develop the sense of being a group learning together
· Provide students with freedom of expression, control and independence
· In my comments provide encouragement, acknowledgement, accomplishment, challenge, questioning
· Keep the tone conversational
As a teacher, I have an important role in establishing social presence. “ Setting the right tone at the right time. The tone may range from nurturing and emotionally supportive to questioning and analytical. The tone of the conversation should correspond with cogntive presence issues and goals.” (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p 80) I would take on the role of facilitator, guide, challenger, moderator, etc. at appropriate moments.
“ Preparation for the first session is important in any educational experience but crucial in an e-learning context.” (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p 80)
If the group is going to do many activities together, like in this e-learning module, I could start with an activity so that all the members could introduce themselves to each other. e.g. filling in template of a profile page. This page would ask for preferences like favourite books, movies, music, etc. These would be things that no one would feel threatened to reveal but could develop further online conversations with members of the group. I would start with completely filling in a profile page for myself.
If the activity is a one time blog discussion, such elaborate introduction is not needed. Rather, requesting the members to briefly introduce themselves as they participate in the discussion would be sufficient. “ Establishing social presence is not a one time activity.” ( Garrison and Andeson, 2003, p 80)
In a programme, I would take the interaction further by introducing an activity that would establish a cultural context of each participant without getting too personal e.g. Asking dividing the group into smaller groups of 4 to get together and share the view from their windows! This could be interpreted as a metaphor or taken literally and the discussion would ensue. Pictures would be allowed. In addition participants would be asked to write a small paragraph about the view. The two-words and visuals communicate differently, while the pictures give you the physical scene and context, words would give a path into the participants’ mind. ‘the characteristics of a text medium as being reflective, explicit and precise may well have inherent advantages in focusing and elevating the cognitive level of exchange.’ (Garrison and Anderson).
There are many online ‘medium’s of exchange- chat, a threaded discussion, email, software like facebook, etc. I would set out the discussion as a blog. This is easily available, accessible and inexpensive. This could be the main medium for communication. I don’t think I could stop other mediums from being used. Email would be my supportive medium. I, as a teacher could use both as the circumstances demanded it. I would contribute to the blog discussion. When someone is not interacting, I could call them via email to find out what’s happening.
How do you establish social presence in e-learning, when you are limited to exchanging words and visuals only, asynchronously?
Garrison and Anderson argue that ‘the characteristics of a text medium as being reflective, explicit and precise may well have inherent advantages in focusing and elevating the cognitive level of exchange.’ This may be an advantage over face-to-face interaction. Research ‘conducted on text based e-learning has consistently demonstrated a capacity for high level of socio-emotional interpersonal communication (Rourke et al. 1999).
Garrison and Anderson have classified social presence into three levels of indicators which grow from one level to the next. These are:
1. Affective communication
2. Open communication
3. Cohesive communication.
1. Affective communication expresses emotions and interest, etc.
This communication lays the base for a deeper exchange. This communication expresses respect, encouragement, support, trust, and tries to touch the other participants. This is usually done in three ways:
· Simply expressing feelings with words. This includes the use of humour, teasing and simply unchallenging, safe communication which promotes goodwill.
· Typographically expressed emotion e.g. Emoticons, punctuations and use of capital letters provide the equivalent of vocal intonations in normal text. Text is re-presented in changed typographic specifications of size, boldness, emphasis, etc. to communicate the feelings and emotions behind the words. e.g. “waaaiiiting to hear from you”
· Through self-disclosure. This specially builds trust. “The concert on Friday night was good but too long for an old girl like me. London was quiet compared to a normal weekday but I liked it that way.............what did everybody else get up to over the holiday week-end?”
2. Open communication is ‘respectful’ and ‘reciprocal’ showing respect, trust and acceptance and thus encouraging participation and reflection. This forms the base for meaningful exchange. Open communication is built through expression of agreement, recognition, acknowledgement, complimenting, and can move on to ‘questioning the substances of messages’ transforming the interaction to a meaningful discussion. Much of e-learning falls into this level of social presence.
Open communication happens when someone
· ‘continues a thread.’ This can be done automatically through software like in an email. e.g. ‘Subject: Re…….’ ;
· Responds to, takes from and refers to others
· Asks questions
· Appreciates another’s contribution
e.g. Hi I have finally found a computer which allows me to edit the page. I have uploaded two new photographs Sumita if you wouldn't mind adding. I have included one of a moon as per conversation and One of myself as per request. I think these photographs will be okay.Thanks for the formatting Sumita it is looking good. Wil be at a computer that works tomorrow early pm if you want more doing.Anne
4. Cohesive communication: Contributes to forming the identity of the group. This is important to ‘sustain the commitment and purpose of a community of inquiry.’ This is evidenced when a participant is referred to by name, brought into the discussion, acknowledged, this communication links it to the rest of the discussion, too. Inclusive pronouns like ‘we’, ‘let us’, ‘our’ recognize and emphasize the group and its reason to be together. The ‘meaningless’ salutations like, Dear All…etc. further build group cohesion.
e.g. Dear allIm now up and running..technology back in place. I have uploaded my Facebook profile picture as this is one(online) window into my life. Formatting looks excellent and the pictures are looking good too. Angie
e.g. HI all, I have done a few more things on the wiki page. This is an invitation to delete, replace, comment, change anything on the page. You can ask me to do it in case you do not know how to. Anne, I tried rescuing your image but could not.YOurs Sumita
Social presence has to be set up at a level that it encourages discussion and fulfills the purpose of the group discourse and become a ‘meaningful educational experience’- it should not be too polite and superficial or aggressive and so inhibiting frank expression.
The greatest need is to maintain social presence so as to create a ‘cognitively stimulating and productive learning experience.’
The teacher or moderator plays an important role in setting the tone of the discussion. The teacher must make each student feel welcome and relevant part of the group. Again, as in a classroom, the quiet student has to be coaxed out of her silence, so also with the non-contributing members of the group. The environment must feel secure and conducive to expression to be ‘intellectually productive’ and stimulating.
The teacher must be encouraging, sensitive, yet challenging, considerate, draw out students, intellectually stimulating comments which expect the same from the students,
Establishing social presence leads to the next level of interaction in an e-learning community – that of establishing cognitive presence.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Portfolio task 2
Analyse Salmon’s model. Does it resonate with the ways in which you teach face to face? Do you have any online experiences that can be reflected on in light of this model? Read the full article by Mazzaloni and Madison. How does this support or challenge Salmon’s notions?
Experience of Stage 1:
Salmon’s model explains different stages/ levels of e-tivities. What is an e-tivity? According to Salmon an e-tivity:
· Interests, energizes, involves the reader and has a purpose
· Allows participants to interact through text based messages
· Is created, planned and lead by an e-moderator
· Is asynchronous
· Is run on bulletin boards, chat rooms, forums, etc.
· Is easy and cheap to conduct
E-tivities consist of the following:
· A small provocative statement or question which invites answers, discussions, etc.
· An invitation which explains the online topic, the purpose of the e-tivity and also the norms for interaction
· It is an online activity consisting of contributors/ participants
· Is moderated by a knowledgeable person who also takes the responsibility of clarification, summing up, giving feedback and providing direction
E-tivities can be categorized into 5 stages. These are
Stage 1: Access
Stage 2: Socialisation
Stage 3: Information exchange
Stage 4: Knowledge construction
Stage 5: Development
Stage 1: Access
Stage 1 sets out that the starting point to any e-tivity is to be able to logon successfully and use the software and knowledge of how to carry out the needed activity.
“What really matters here is acquiring the emotional and social capacity to learn with others online. Technical skills can be acquired and disposed of as needs be. Feelings about being unable to take part successfully are more significant than precise technical skills.” (Salmon 2002, p 12)
“At stage 1, e-moderators should first focus on building e-tivities that enable participants to become involved and contribute and start to develop skills for themselves. Stage 1 e-tivities should directly enable participants to increase their comfort with the use of the technology in an integrated and worthwhile way for them….
The key is to mobilize participants' understanding about why they are learning, why in this way, as well as what they have to do to take part. Even the most apparently confident individuals need support at the beginning.” (Salmon 2002, p 16)
“To demonstrate value at stage 1, make it very clear to participants the purpose of your programmes of e-tivities (for them) or how stage 1 links to and integrates with the rest of the learning or networking process, its role in assessed components (tests and assignments) and the amount of time they should allocate to working on it.” (Salmon 2002, p 17)
Stage 1 seems obvious needed and crucial. If it does not happen, no e-tivity takes place. When you are unable to log into the activity it can be very frustrating. E.g. The experience of the video conference in this elearning module.
So much happened before the event (the video conference) actually started, before I logged on and knew what to do that I think there should be a Stage Zero in Salmon’s model. Two weeks or so before the event, the organizer of the event, the instructor and moderator, Stevie sent out emails announcing the event. She had divided the e-learning ‘class’ into smaller groups of 3 people- two students and a moderator and scheduled for different days and times. She was thoughtful about the time I could join the event- being in another country and time zone. The video conference I would participate in was set for about 4:30 pm UK time, I could participate, as I normally did, after my work day starting 9:00 pm.
Something at Stevie’s end changed and just before the event was to take place, the event was rescheduled to another day and time, but the exact day and time would be announced later. It was announced later but using a different form of e-communication. The first announcement was conveniently made by email, the details of the second were announced in NOW! There was a link which had software the participants had to download to start the video conference. This was available through a link in NOW.
I remembered the day and time for the event. I normally took the elearning calls at home, but
· My internet connection at home was not working,
· The internet connection at college was not available for me at 9:00 pm,
· Going to a cyber café would not work in this case as it was a video conference. The cyber café did not offer facilities for a video conference.
So I requested a friend to allow me the use of his office.
I reached the venue 1.5 hours before time to download the video conferencing software so that I would be ready for the conference in time. To download it I needed to go to NOW, the NTU learning online portal where Stevie, my instructor had posted the link. For this I needed my user id and password. Thankfully I had those on me. (Getting the link over email would have been easier.) I logged on and tried to download the software. I finally managed to download a version of the software but could not get user authentication. Frantically I sent Stevie a mail in case she needed to give me permission to enter the videoconference. Four mails and two overseas phone calls later, I got authenticated and was allowed into the ‘classroom.’ On entering I found I could see Stevie but she could not see me and the audio did not work. But I was logged into the ‘classroom’ and was ready with Stage 1. The planning, time and actions before stage one were crucial, so according to me there should be a Stage 0. I still do not know why there was a lack of authentication and no video and audio. Maybe the version of software I downloaded was not correct, maybe the Windows XP, my operating system was not appropriate. I still need to find out why all the things did not work perfectly.
The video ‘conference’ (this had now become a video conference for one participant and writing conference for another) with Stevie and me (the third participant was absent) started with stage 1 activities where Stevie took me on a tour of the ‘classroom’ interface explaining the different tools of the whiteboard, the use of the different ‘gesture’ icons to structure the interaction placed on the top left of the screen, the written chat area on the left which I was using to communicate with Stevie, and the video window through which I watched Stevie. With this interaction I became familiar with the software Elluminate .used for video conferencing.
Stage 2: Socialisation
Stage 2 of Salmon’s model is the stage when people who have logged on to an e-tivity, need to establish their online identities with the online group. At this stage expectations and goals are expressed, norms of interaction, introductions are made and differences, if any, are explained.
Salmon says of this stage: “When designing effective e-tivities for stage 2, it helps to consider what it means to enter a new and fresh world with people from a wide variety of backgrounds and perhaps cultures and countries. When asynchronous computer-based learning first started, there was a belief that there would be a strong discontinuity between people's location-based physical selves and their online or virtual personae. However, e-moderators using computer mediation for teaching and learning soon came to realize that online learning groups often can develop their own strong online identity.” (Salmon 2002, p 22)
I found one of the mails I posted in a discussion forum in the e-learning module brings out stage 2.
April 10, 09
I am Sumita writing from India. Currently this e-learning module is an e-learning experience for me. I would not be able to study in this module if it were not e-learning based. E-learning in my context is simply 'learning from a great distance'. The very fact that this is possible is incredible. It could have been the old fashioned printed material coming to me from Pete and Stevie, but now it is email, hopefully a chat and the liveliest is this discussion forum through which I am learning and interacting with a class.
Having said this, the experience is very patchy for me. As long as I am able to log onto the internet and stay connected I receive the module and the experience. As soon as my internet goes off, which it has numerous times, I am shut out. When I am finally able to log on again, I have to catch up on many threads of discussion and have not yet been able to cover all that I seem to have missed in between.
The other fact I am most conscious of is the time lag. And it is because of this I have not yet been able to connect through a chat. With all the obstacles, this module still remains a miracle. And I hope I am able to learn all that I need to at the end and complete it. Amy tells me that I am still not enrolled and I wonder at that because I am allowed by the software to participate in this discussion!
Sumita
An e-tivity should soon take on a pace of its own and enthuse people to participate. At first when I participated in discussion threads in this module, I was hesitant. I felt exposed. But once I started, and got a response, mainly from Pete, I found myself hurrying home at the end of the day eager to logon and see if there were any responses, had I invited contact through my comment. An entry in my journal illustrates this:
“Once I opened the discussions it felt suddenly real, the opportunity to observe people in the module, listen to what they were saying, and then adding my own responses felt REAL and not distant. After work, returning home I fixed up my computer to see if Pete had put in a comment- he had. This felt good. I think to keep the experience real it will be important to keep posting something on the discussion forum, invite interactions from others and wait for them. The fear of not connecting seems almost like it would happen in a normal classroom.”
“To promote groups and achieve much more collaborative learning later on, e-tivities that are explicitly about exploring cultural knowledge are very valuable at this stage, particularly those that explain differences.” (Salmon 2002, p 23). This was true of the Wiki activity in this e-learning module. We were again divided into groups of 4 people each. We had to learn to logon to the pbwiki site and together create a wiki about ‘ What I see from my window.’ This seemed simple enough on the face of it. It turned out much more interesting than that- there were a lot of cultural overtones in the contributions.
e.g. The wiki activity in the e-learning module I underwent at NTU.
Salmon says “This second stage is over when participants start to share themselves online and the basis for future information exchange and knowledge construction has been laid down. Essentially you are looking for the majority of members to have some understanding about the group or community's ability to work together online and how they might contribute to learning and development through this medium. They should be interacting with each other and some trust should be starting to build up. They should be sharing stories and ideas and exploring styles and ways of working.” (Salmon 2002, p 24).
This never really happened in this stage 2 activity of creating a wiki. We did begin to interact on email –there were a flurry of emails at various times during the activity, a few exchanges on Facebook, I tried calling and left messages on phones, chat room and finally in the wiki message space itself. There were a few exchanges but these never picked up enough to become ‘conversations’ and more in depth interactions.
Stage 3: Information exchange
Any e-tivity promotes involvement and interaction. This needs to be clearly organized with the relevant structures differentiating one interaction from another appropriately placed. In an audio conference it would be
· Waiting for each person to complete what they are saying.
· Indicating the end of a conversation, etc.
In multiple threads the participants would need to
· Keep track of the flow of information,
· Keep pace with asynchrocity,
· Knit the information from different threads together.
In an synchronous discussion or in a blog it would help to have the instructor/ moderator sum up different threads together.
“At this stage, participants need knowledge of tools for remote access to information and knowledge of strategies for purposeful information retrieval. However, information in e-tivities should be short and should be there to initiate action and interaction. We call this information the `spark'. Even at stage 3, participants' efforts in finding and reading masses of information online will divert them from active and interactive learning.” (Salmon 2002, p 26)
According to Salmon, at stage 3, participants begin to actively look for interactions, ways to interact with participants and look for encouragement from the moderator. In this stage there would be many calls for help, and clarity (Salmon 2002, p 26). As participants become more familiar with the e-tivity they begin to navigate and make ‘contact’ which then goes further to more interactions-regular ‘conversations’ ensue, relationships begin to be established. The dynamics of the group also begin to get clearer and not only that but ‘how to operate successfully’ (Salmon 2002, p 28), becomes clear.
I have not had a strongly stage 4 experience. The closest I have come to it is a long group interaction on Facebook when a batch of us re-established contact and finally managed to plan and attend a get together, collecting from different cities and even countries, after 30 years of graduating.
Stage 4: Knowledge construction
In stage 4, the participants become online authors. In an online discussion, moderator’s knit together information from different threads, bring in fresh theories and also wrap up discussions bringing the e-tivity to its end.
These two stages are where Mazzaloni and Madison’s findings support Salmon’s model. Their findings are that the moderator plays a crucial role in online discussions. According to them a moderator joins discussions to do any one of the following:
o Provide thoughtful comments which will stimulate further discussions and motivate students into further enquiry.(Paloff and Pratt, 1999)
o Answers to questions asked
o Wrap up a discussion at the end- answer remaining unanswered questions, “finish off or tidy up any extended discussions.”
o Correct any misconceptions that are appearing in the discussion.
o Ask another question- to redirect the discussion, to increase the depth of enquiry, to stimulate interest, to check how much students know
o Redirect the discussion
o Clarify understandings of key concepts
o Link or knit together different threads of discussion
o Take on the role of ‘guide on the side.’
E-tivities in stage 4 have a core purpose of learning, development and discussion. The questions/ problems/ strategic issues being discussed need not have a correct or incorrect answer. In fact they could be interpreted in many ways. The knowledge that finds its way through serious contributions by participants needs to be sorted out by the participants, understood, digested and converted into further discussion or application into participants’ lives. A lot depends on the participant- what she makes of the content and the e-tivity experience. This is experiential learning. The participant would develop individual interpretations out of the content of the discussion.
Such activities can strongly develop cross cultural knowledge.
There are many such blogs and forums on the net. E.g. My son was applying for college admission and went to blogs where other students offered opinions, findings, experiences, tips, etc. He came away with a lot of knowledge about the admission process and was able to make his choices appropriately. He is now successfully pursuing his graduation in the U.S. (Salmon 2002, p 31 )
At this stage, Salmon states, e-moderators become important. They demonstrate skills to develop and sustain group interaction, pulling different threads of the discussion together, ‘weaving together key points from e-tivity responses’.
This is the role I now understand Pete took on during our various discussions in the classroom in NOW. He would identify a point in a comment which he thought the participants should look further into, he would agree to comments, and take them further into the discussion, or encourage a participant to probe or reflect further on a particular thought or opinion.
“The best e-moderators also summarize from time to time, span wide-ranging views and provide new topics when discussions go off track. They stimulate fresh strands of thought, introduce new themes and suggest alternative approaches. The value of an online discussion can be very high so long as interest and focus last. But there is no need artificially to extend discussions and plenaries. E-moderators need e-tivity closing as well as opening skills!” (Salmon 2002, p 31 )
“This stage can be considered completed by a joint outcome produced or an independent collaborative e-tivity in evidence. Once you've got participants to this stage, they will have their own sense of time and place and momentum. Another clue is that they can comfortably and supportively challenge and build on each other's contributions.” (Salmon 2002, p 33)
In the e-learning discussions I don’t think our discussions reached a mature stage as described above.
Stage 5: Development
Stage 5 is when participants in an e-tivity plan on how they are going to continue to learn and grow. At this stage an instructor or teacher will encourage, support and comment on the developments.
I would like to be able to initiate a discussion and I am going to try and do that for two batches of students who will no longer be either attending the college or will be away for a length of time. These are students who have graduated and are now looking for placement. I would like to start a discussion for the different problems they face and hand hold them to a successful placement. There are 23 such students out there all over India. The second batch of students are the next batch who are looking for internships and will be joing internships at different organizations, again all over India. A blog or discussion forum would be one way to keep in touch with them.
I need to structure this further and in greater detail.
Analyse Salmon’s model. Does it resonate with the ways in which you teach face to face? Do you have any online experiences that can be reflected on in light of this model? Read the full article by Mazzaloni and Madison. How does this support or challenge Salmon’s notions?
Experience of Stage 1:
Salmon’s model explains different stages/ levels of e-tivities. What is an e-tivity? According to Salmon an e-tivity:
· Interests, energizes, involves the reader and has a purpose
· Allows participants to interact through text based messages
· Is created, planned and lead by an e-moderator
· Is asynchronous
· Is run on bulletin boards, chat rooms, forums, etc.
· Is easy and cheap to conduct
E-tivities consist of the following:
· A small provocative statement or question which invites answers, discussions, etc.
· An invitation which explains the online topic, the purpose of the e-tivity and also the norms for interaction
· It is an online activity consisting of contributors/ participants
· Is moderated by a knowledgeable person who also takes the responsibility of clarification, summing up, giving feedback and providing direction
E-tivities can be categorized into 5 stages. These are
Stage 1: Access
Stage 2: Socialisation
Stage 3: Information exchange
Stage 4: Knowledge construction
Stage 5: Development
Stage 1: Access
Stage 1 sets out that the starting point to any e-tivity is to be able to logon successfully and use the software and knowledge of how to carry out the needed activity.
“What really matters here is acquiring the emotional and social capacity to learn with others online. Technical skills can be acquired and disposed of as needs be. Feelings about being unable to take part successfully are more significant than precise technical skills.” (Salmon 2002, p 12)
“At stage 1, e-moderators should first focus on building e-tivities that enable participants to become involved and contribute and start to develop skills for themselves. Stage 1 e-tivities should directly enable participants to increase their comfort with the use of the technology in an integrated and worthwhile way for them….
The key is to mobilize participants' understanding about why they are learning, why in this way, as well as what they have to do to take part. Even the most apparently confident individuals need support at the beginning.” (Salmon 2002, p 16)
“To demonstrate value at stage 1, make it very clear to participants the purpose of your programmes of e-tivities (for them) or how stage 1 links to and integrates with the rest of the learning or networking process, its role in assessed components (tests and assignments) and the amount of time they should allocate to working on it.” (Salmon 2002, p 17)
Stage 1 seems obvious needed and crucial. If it does not happen, no e-tivity takes place. When you are unable to log into the activity it can be very frustrating. E.g. The experience of the video conference in this elearning module.
So much happened before the event (the video conference) actually started, before I logged on and knew what to do that I think there should be a Stage Zero in Salmon’s model. Two weeks or so before the event, the organizer of the event, the instructor and moderator, Stevie sent out emails announcing the event. She had divided the e-learning ‘class’ into smaller groups of 3 people- two students and a moderator and scheduled for different days and times. She was thoughtful about the time I could join the event- being in another country and time zone. The video conference I would participate in was set for about 4:30 pm UK time, I could participate, as I normally did, after my work day starting 9:00 pm.
Something at Stevie’s end changed and just before the event was to take place, the event was rescheduled to another day and time, but the exact day and time would be announced later. It was announced later but using a different form of e-communication. The first announcement was conveniently made by email, the details of the second were announced in NOW! There was a link which had software the participants had to download to start the video conference. This was available through a link in NOW.
I remembered the day and time for the event. I normally took the elearning calls at home, but
· My internet connection at home was not working,
· The internet connection at college was not available for me at 9:00 pm,
· Going to a cyber café would not work in this case as it was a video conference. The cyber café did not offer facilities for a video conference.
So I requested a friend to allow me the use of his office.
I reached the venue 1.5 hours before time to download the video conferencing software so that I would be ready for the conference in time. To download it I needed to go to NOW, the NTU learning online portal where Stevie, my instructor had posted the link. For this I needed my user id and password. Thankfully I had those on me. (Getting the link over email would have been easier.) I logged on and tried to download the software. I finally managed to download a version of the software but could not get user authentication. Frantically I sent Stevie a mail in case she needed to give me permission to enter the videoconference. Four mails and two overseas phone calls later, I got authenticated and was allowed into the ‘classroom.’ On entering I found I could see Stevie but she could not see me and the audio did not work. But I was logged into the ‘classroom’ and was ready with Stage 1. The planning, time and actions before stage one were crucial, so according to me there should be a Stage 0. I still do not know why there was a lack of authentication and no video and audio. Maybe the version of software I downloaded was not correct, maybe the Windows XP, my operating system was not appropriate. I still need to find out why all the things did not work perfectly.
The video ‘conference’ (this had now become a video conference for one participant and writing conference for another) with Stevie and me (the third participant was absent) started with stage 1 activities where Stevie took me on a tour of the ‘classroom’ interface explaining the different tools of the whiteboard, the use of the different ‘gesture’ icons to structure the interaction placed on the top left of the screen, the written chat area on the left which I was using to communicate with Stevie, and the video window through which I watched Stevie. With this interaction I became familiar with the software Elluminate .used for video conferencing.
Stage 2: Socialisation
Stage 2 of Salmon’s model is the stage when people who have logged on to an e-tivity, need to establish their online identities with the online group. At this stage expectations and goals are expressed, norms of interaction, introductions are made and differences, if any, are explained.
Salmon says of this stage: “When designing effective e-tivities for stage 2, it helps to consider what it means to enter a new and fresh world with people from a wide variety of backgrounds and perhaps cultures and countries. When asynchronous computer-based learning first started, there was a belief that there would be a strong discontinuity between people's location-based physical selves and their online or virtual personae. However, e-moderators using computer mediation for teaching and learning soon came to realize that online learning groups often can develop their own strong online identity.” (Salmon 2002, p 22)
I found one of the mails I posted in a discussion forum in the e-learning module brings out stage 2.
April 10, 09
I am Sumita writing from India. Currently this e-learning module is an e-learning experience for me. I would not be able to study in this module if it were not e-learning based. E-learning in my context is simply 'learning from a great distance'. The very fact that this is possible is incredible. It could have been the old fashioned printed material coming to me from Pete and Stevie, but now it is email, hopefully a chat and the liveliest is this discussion forum through which I am learning and interacting with a class.
Having said this, the experience is very patchy for me. As long as I am able to log onto the internet and stay connected I receive the module and the experience. As soon as my internet goes off, which it has numerous times, I am shut out. When I am finally able to log on again, I have to catch up on many threads of discussion and have not yet been able to cover all that I seem to have missed in between.
The other fact I am most conscious of is the time lag. And it is because of this I have not yet been able to connect through a chat. With all the obstacles, this module still remains a miracle. And I hope I am able to learn all that I need to at the end and complete it. Amy tells me that I am still not enrolled and I wonder at that because I am allowed by the software to participate in this discussion!
Sumita
An e-tivity should soon take on a pace of its own and enthuse people to participate. At first when I participated in discussion threads in this module, I was hesitant. I felt exposed. But once I started, and got a response, mainly from Pete, I found myself hurrying home at the end of the day eager to logon and see if there were any responses, had I invited contact through my comment. An entry in my journal illustrates this:
“Once I opened the discussions it felt suddenly real, the opportunity to observe people in the module, listen to what they were saying, and then adding my own responses felt REAL and not distant. After work, returning home I fixed up my computer to see if Pete had put in a comment- he had. This felt good. I think to keep the experience real it will be important to keep posting something on the discussion forum, invite interactions from others and wait for them. The fear of not connecting seems almost like it would happen in a normal classroom.”
“To promote groups and achieve much more collaborative learning later on, e-tivities that are explicitly about exploring cultural knowledge are very valuable at this stage, particularly those that explain differences.” (Salmon 2002, p 23). This was true of the Wiki activity in this e-learning module. We were again divided into groups of 4 people each. We had to learn to logon to the pbwiki site and together create a wiki about ‘ What I see from my window.’ This seemed simple enough on the face of it. It turned out much more interesting than that- there were a lot of cultural overtones in the contributions.
e.g. The wiki activity in the e-learning module I underwent at NTU.
Salmon says “This second stage is over when participants start to share themselves online and the basis for future information exchange and knowledge construction has been laid down. Essentially you are looking for the majority of members to have some understanding about the group or community's ability to work together online and how they might contribute to learning and development through this medium. They should be interacting with each other and some trust should be starting to build up. They should be sharing stories and ideas and exploring styles and ways of working.” (Salmon 2002, p 24).
This never really happened in this stage 2 activity of creating a wiki. We did begin to interact on email –there were a flurry of emails at various times during the activity, a few exchanges on Facebook, I tried calling and left messages on phones, chat room and finally in the wiki message space itself. There were a few exchanges but these never picked up enough to become ‘conversations’ and more in depth interactions.
Stage 3: Information exchange
Any e-tivity promotes involvement and interaction. This needs to be clearly organized with the relevant structures differentiating one interaction from another appropriately placed. In an audio conference it would be
· Waiting for each person to complete what they are saying.
· Indicating the end of a conversation, etc.
In multiple threads the participants would need to
· Keep track of the flow of information,
· Keep pace with asynchrocity,
· Knit the information from different threads together.
In an synchronous discussion or in a blog it would help to have the instructor/ moderator sum up different threads together.
“At this stage, participants need knowledge of tools for remote access to information and knowledge of strategies for purposeful information retrieval. However, information in e-tivities should be short and should be there to initiate action and interaction. We call this information the `spark'. Even at stage 3, participants' efforts in finding and reading masses of information online will divert them from active and interactive learning.” (Salmon 2002, p 26)
According to Salmon, at stage 3, participants begin to actively look for interactions, ways to interact with participants and look for encouragement from the moderator. In this stage there would be many calls for help, and clarity (Salmon 2002, p 26). As participants become more familiar with the e-tivity they begin to navigate and make ‘contact’ which then goes further to more interactions-regular ‘conversations’ ensue, relationships begin to be established. The dynamics of the group also begin to get clearer and not only that but ‘how to operate successfully’ (Salmon 2002, p 28), becomes clear.
I have not had a strongly stage 4 experience. The closest I have come to it is a long group interaction on Facebook when a batch of us re-established contact and finally managed to plan and attend a get together, collecting from different cities and even countries, after 30 years of graduating.
Stage 4: Knowledge construction
In stage 4, the participants become online authors. In an online discussion, moderator’s knit together information from different threads, bring in fresh theories and also wrap up discussions bringing the e-tivity to its end.
These two stages are where Mazzaloni and Madison’s findings support Salmon’s model. Their findings are that the moderator plays a crucial role in online discussions. According to them a moderator joins discussions to do any one of the following:
o Provide thoughtful comments which will stimulate further discussions and motivate students into further enquiry.(Paloff and Pratt, 1999)
o Answers to questions asked
o Wrap up a discussion at the end- answer remaining unanswered questions, “finish off or tidy up any extended discussions.”
o Correct any misconceptions that are appearing in the discussion.
o Ask another question- to redirect the discussion, to increase the depth of enquiry, to stimulate interest, to check how much students know
o Redirect the discussion
o Clarify understandings of key concepts
o Link or knit together different threads of discussion
o Take on the role of ‘guide on the side.’
E-tivities in stage 4 have a core purpose of learning, development and discussion. The questions/ problems/ strategic issues being discussed need not have a correct or incorrect answer. In fact they could be interpreted in many ways. The knowledge that finds its way through serious contributions by participants needs to be sorted out by the participants, understood, digested and converted into further discussion or application into participants’ lives. A lot depends on the participant- what she makes of the content and the e-tivity experience. This is experiential learning. The participant would develop individual interpretations out of the content of the discussion.
Such activities can strongly develop cross cultural knowledge.
There are many such blogs and forums on the net. E.g. My son was applying for college admission and went to blogs where other students offered opinions, findings, experiences, tips, etc. He came away with a lot of knowledge about the admission process and was able to make his choices appropriately. He is now successfully pursuing his graduation in the U.S. (Salmon 2002, p 31 )
At this stage, Salmon states, e-moderators become important. They demonstrate skills to develop and sustain group interaction, pulling different threads of the discussion together, ‘weaving together key points from e-tivity responses’.
This is the role I now understand Pete took on during our various discussions in the classroom in NOW. He would identify a point in a comment which he thought the participants should look further into, he would agree to comments, and take them further into the discussion, or encourage a participant to probe or reflect further on a particular thought or opinion.
“The best e-moderators also summarize from time to time, span wide-ranging views and provide new topics when discussions go off track. They stimulate fresh strands of thought, introduce new themes and suggest alternative approaches. The value of an online discussion can be very high so long as interest and focus last. But there is no need artificially to extend discussions and plenaries. E-moderators need e-tivity closing as well as opening skills!” (Salmon 2002, p 31 )
“This stage can be considered completed by a joint outcome produced or an independent collaborative e-tivity in evidence. Once you've got participants to this stage, they will have their own sense of time and place and momentum. Another clue is that they can comfortably and supportively challenge and build on each other's contributions.” (Salmon 2002, p 33)
In the e-learning discussions I don’t think our discussions reached a mature stage as described above.
Stage 5: Development
Stage 5 is when participants in an e-tivity plan on how they are going to continue to learn and grow. At this stage an instructor or teacher will encourage, support and comment on the developments.
I would like to be able to initiate a discussion and I am going to try and do that for two batches of students who will no longer be either attending the college or will be away for a length of time. These are students who have graduated and are now looking for placement. I would like to start a discussion for the different problems they face and hand hold them to a successful placement. There are 23 such students out there all over India. The second batch of students are the next batch who are looking for internships and will be joing internships at different organizations, again all over India. A blog or discussion forum would be one way to keep in touch with them.
I need to structure this further and in greater detail.
When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums
Margeret Mazzaloni and Sarah Maddison
Science Direct Computers and Education 49 (2007) 193-213
What is the role an instructor plays in asynchronous online discussion forums and flexible delivery modes of teaching? When should the instructor join the forum? What is the purpose of various kinds of comments the instructor can pose? How do students receive the instructor? What is the intention of the instructor? What is the comparison to face to face learning in a classroom?
My thoughts and interpretations of what Mazzaloni and Madison say in this paper.
How do you create an active, participating and learning community through online means. How does one establish communication in an asynchronous discussion? How can one draw out the quieter students? Onlines exchanges are bereft of body language and verbal cues. How can you gauge the personality of the students?
Another challenge for online teachers is
· When to enter a discussion?
· How much to say?
· What should be expressed and what shouldn’t?
In a planned asynchronous exchange a time period, e.g. of two week is pre-set. This date and other (what other????) housekeeping rules are announced.
· How much to say?
o A teacher must contribute visibly- that is important. This encourages students. (Salmon, 2000)
o A teacher needs to balance how much she writes in the discussion. It can be overdone and underdone.
· When to enter a discussion?
o When misconceptions are being discussed. Correct these.
o When discussion is dying out. Rejuvenate it or redirect it with a question.
o At the end to wrap things up.
· What should be expressed?
o Thoughtful comments which will stimulate further discussions and motivate students into further enquiry (Paloff and Pratt, 1999).
o Answers to questions asked.
o Wrap up a discussion at the end- answer remaining unanswered questions, “finish off or tidy up any extended discussions.”
o Correct any misconceptions that are appearing in the discussion.
o Ask another question- to redirect the discussion, to increase the depth of enquiry, to stimulate interest, to check how much students know
o Redirect the discussion
o Clarify understandings of key concepts
o (Role is one of guide on the side)
Students rate teachers who participate more highly than those who don’t and those who just do housekeeping on the forum.
Findings of the study were that the more instructors participated, the less students did so.
Could this be like in a face to face classroom, if students are left alone or if the instructor stays quiet, the class discussion is louder, more boisterous and less directed whereas when a teacher is participative and regulates the discussion, albeit with a light touch, the discussion is possibly more meaningful, shorter, more organized and also less students participate. In a face to face discussion, the teacher draws out quiet students. This is not possible in an online discussion thread. But as soon as a student who participates less comes on board, I would acknowledge the remark with an encouraging remark of my own, or take the point being made further. I found my teacher, Pete did this in an online forum during this elearning course. It was encouraging to find his comment when I next clocked in.
“Students opine that:
Teachers who participate are more highly regarded than those who don’t and those who just do housekeeping on the forum.
Teachers who participate know their subject and are experts.
It is useful when teachers participate
Whether teachers participate or not, students would still express satisfaction for their forum experience.”
“ We found that most …students tend to rate their satisfaction with their overall educational experience highly, whether their instructors poste frequently or not.”
Some students felt that initially the teachers should not participate. They should join in only after the discussion is well underway, as this can kill off many threads.
Teachers tended to wrap up discussions in all courses irrespective whether they were for undergraduates and postgraduates.
Students appreciated wrap ups at the end of the forum discussions.
An instructor indicated that he posts comments during the two week period because he finds that there are many students who don’t look back at ‘previous two week periods in detail.”
At SAO instructors are encouraged to teach critical thinking skills, take the ‘Socratic approach’ to participating in online discussion forums. (McKnight, 2000). ‘ Here the underlying model is a constructivist one , which assumes that student knowledge and preconceptions can be drawn out through students-student and instructor-student asking and answering of questions in asynchronous discussion in ways not available in purely paper-based distance education. (for more on constructivist approaches to online education, see Anderson, 2002).
Margeret Mazzaloni and Sarah Maddison
Science Direct Computers and Education 49 (2007) 193-213
What is the role an instructor plays in asynchronous online discussion forums and flexible delivery modes of teaching? When should the instructor join the forum? What is the purpose of various kinds of comments the instructor can pose? How do students receive the instructor? What is the intention of the instructor? What is the comparison to face to face learning in a classroom?
My thoughts and interpretations of what Mazzaloni and Madison say in this paper.
How do you create an active, participating and learning community through online means. How does one establish communication in an asynchronous discussion? How can one draw out the quieter students? Onlines exchanges are bereft of body language and verbal cues. How can you gauge the personality of the students?
Another challenge for online teachers is
· When to enter a discussion?
· How much to say?
· What should be expressed and what shouldn’t?
In a planned asynchronous exchange a time period, e.g. of two week is pre-set. This date and other (what other????) housekeeping rules are announced.
· How much to say?
o A teacher must contribute visibly- that is important. This encourages students. (Salmon, 2000)
o A teacher needs to balance how much she writes in the discussion. It can be overdone and underdone.
· When to enter a discussion?
o When misconceptions are being discussed. Correct these.
o When discussion is dying out. Rejuvenate it or redirect it with a question.
o At the end to wrap things up.
· What should be expressed?
o Thoughtful comments which will stimulate further discussions and motivate students into further enquiry (Paloff and Pratt, 1999).
o Answers to questions asked.
o Wrap up a discussion at the end- answer remaining unanswered questions, “finish off or tidy up any extended discussions.”
o Correct any misconceptions that are appearing in the discussion.
o Ask another question- to redirect the discussion, to increase the depth of enquiry, to stimulate interest, to check how much students know
o Redirect the discussion
o Clarify understandings of key concepts
o (Role is one of guide on the side)
Students rate teachers who participate more highly than those who don’t and those who just do housekeeping on the forum.
Findings of the study were that the more instructors participated, the less students did so.
Could this be like in a face to face classroom, if students are left alone or if the instructor stays quiet, the class discussion is louder, more boisterous and less directed whereas when a teacher is participative and regulates the discussion, albeit with a light touch, the discussion is possibly more meaningful, shorter, more organized and also less students participate. In a face to face discussion, the teacher draws out quiet students. This is not possible in an online discussion thread. But as soon as a student who participates less comes on board, I would acknowledge the remark with an encouraging remark of my own, or take the point being made further. I found my teacher, Pete did this in an online forum during this elearning course. It was encouraging to find his comment when I next clocked in.
“Students opine that:
Teachers who participate are more highly regarded than those who don’t and those who just do housekeeping on the forum.
Teachers who participate know their subject and are experts.
It is useful when teachers participate
Whether teachers participate or not, students would still express satisfaction for their forum experience.”
“ We found that most …students tend to rate their satisfaction with their overall educational experience highly, whether their instructors poste frequently or not.”
Some students felt that initially the teachers should not participate. They should join in only after the discussion is well underway, as this can kill off many threads.
Teachers tended to wrap up discussions in all courses irrespective whether they were for undergraduates and postgraduates.
Students appreciated wrap ups at the end of the forum discussions.
An instructor indicated that he posts comments during the two week period because he finds that there are many students who don’t look back at ‘previous two week periods in detail.”
At SAO instructors are encouraged to teach critical thinking skills, take the ‘Socratic approach’ to participating in online discussion forums. (McKnight, 2000). ‘ Here the underlying model is a constructivist one , which assumes that student knowledge and preconceptions can be drawn out through students-student and instructor-student asking and answering of questions in asynchronous discussion in ways not available in purely paper-based distance education. (for more on constructivist approaches to online education, see Anderson, 2002).
Sunday, June 14, 2009
- Reflecting on Online Learning:
Its all about dialogue, involvement, support and control-according to the research
Stephenson, J.
For online learning to happen, 4 aspects of online learning have been identified as key- DISC. These are:
1. Dialogue
2. Involvement
3. Support
4. Control
In addition lessons must be well structured, well designed, with feedback so that the learner can have appropriate amount of control over the learning.
Dialogue:
This can be done through:
· Discussions
· Debates
· Chats- synchronous and asynchronous
· Bulletin boards
· Email
It is important for this to work, it needs to be worked into the structure of the course. It cannot happen just like that.
I would like to watch out for this in my regular face to face classes, too. How do I build in dialogue in class- with questions in between my lecture, structured discussion like when thinking of uses for a ‘tea-object’, in-class critiquing (which I should study further and reflect on since I use it so much and it seems to keep popping up as crucial) In online learning critiquing is key- I tried it in the blog I floated during ‘corporat identity’ where students posted their work- symbols and logos in the blog and students sent in their comments. The student could give his/her response to the peer comment that came in.
It was available for everyone to see.
Involvement
‘Structured tasks’, ‘active engagement with the material’, groupwork, show of work, shows the students’ involvement. Need to watch out that it is not too time consuming and keeps the student motivated and participating.
In the wiki task answering ‘what I see from my window’ kept us involved. Seeing the pictures in the wiki coming from each other and giving us a peek into each others worlds was interesting and kept us participating, asynchronously. That exercise showed group involvement.
In face to face teaching how do I guage involvement? Structured group work and the outcome of that does it, again questions, this time from the students during class shows me involvement.
On the blog I posted, responses of people putting up work and comments coming in showed me involvement. Mails and counter emails on plagiarism in college showed involvement. When the emails became nasty and an open fight, social derision expressed in the emails stopped the mails and the ‘involvement’ was shamed into stopping. That was a lesson. We were wondering how to stop the baseless accusations of plagiarism and the automatic publicity and attacking of reputation that it lead to.
Support
Online this can take many forms:
· Peer support
· Comments from the teachers in the form of
o Comments posted in a chat
§ Opinions
§ Further references
§ Structure for responses
§ Encouragement
o Comments posted against work in the form of emails
o Skype conversations
o Video conferencing (technology is essential)
o Facebook
What did not happen was face to face. This is automatic in non-online teaching- in a classroom.
Basically this is feedback. special attention. In online courses, building a community is important for this flow of support to happen ‘automatically.’ In online learning, a lot of time needs to be given to supporting your peers. This has not happened very successfully in the chat room in NOW. I have been there numerous times to see if there is anyone for a chat- but there has not been. I wondered for a long time what the ‘Orange Tree’ was and wished I could meet people there myself, only to learn it was a place located physically on the NTU campus.
DISC happens to different degrees, in different ways in online learning and teaching.
Specified tasks
Learner managed
Teacher controlled
Open-ended strategic
1. Teacher determined, task specific
e.g. Chem-on-wheels
And all the CD-Roms I have been involved in.
2. Learner determined, task specific
e.g. The pbwiki task,
Plan an event using Blogs,
Project management –creating a product and selling it.
3. Teacher determined, open ended strategic learning activity
e.g. A simulation where people have different roles and use any online means for communication, in typography, copy a magazine page layout and recreate it. Discuss the experience online using a blog, chat forum. Now post something you have created yourself. A completely new layout. Place it in the blog page and invite peer comments. Respond to the comments
4. Learner controls direction of learning, Personal goals and learner goals present. e.g. Our last assignment of identifying a case study of online learning,
Any research paper on studying mentoring in the academy.
1.Specified Tasks, Teacher controlled:
CD-Roms:
I spent a few years in my career making CD-Rom in various subjects- IT related training, Soft skills training and teaching science to children. The most interactive of these was Chem-on-Wheels which was a virtual chemistry lab. Students could clock into the CD-Rom to do all the chemistry experiments that were in the syllabus for the last two years in school. The students followed the laid down steps and watched chemical interactions happen in a test tube, with heat, and various chemistry equipment. The learner, by following each step on screen, initiated the running of animation or movies. It was as if the student was stimulating chemistry experiments.
Dialogue: The online dialogue and interactions were pre-specified. The tasks were laid down and described and the student ‘followed’ these on the screen through clicks and drags.
Involvement: The learner could not influence any content which was specified at each step. There was no web access- the learner could access various information navigating through the CD-Rom. The default positions were different lab tables with jars of chemicals and various equipment ‘lined up on a counter (images).’
Support: The learner got support through feedback which appeared as a result of actions like clicking on different parts of the screen and dragging e.g. Clicking on a visual of a bottle of chemical and dragging it to a test tube across the screen. When done correctly the learner received positive feedback else negative feedback. This was pre-recorded feedback in the form of audio and text.
Control: Learner control was confined to specific tasks performed through clicks and drags on screen. There was a pre-determined sequence of actions to complete the experiment correctly. The content was laid out in the CD-Rom. There was no scope for new content.
In some CD-Roms the learner could maintain a diary on his/her computer.
Teacher role: None. All instruction was built into the CD-Rom.
2.Specified Tasks, Learner managed:
PB Wiki
We were divided into groups of 4. We had to together put together a wiki which informed the group and the rest of the class about ‘the view from each of our windows.’ All the learners were geographically removed from each other and did not know each other at all. Through the process of wiki creation we got to know each other a little better, the view from each of our windows, how we interpreted this theme, the kind of stories we came up with helped us know each other a little better.
Dialogue:The teacher set out the basic rules in the assignment and the responsibility for carrying out the task lay was the students. The students used various means of communication- email, facebook, chat room, discussion option provided in the wiki itself and even phone.
Involvement: The group had to manage itself. It was selected by the teachers but moderated by the students themselves. The learner had the freedom to interpret the theme to his/her ‘own aspirations and circumstances.’
Support: The tutor basically encouraged the groups and was timekeeper. Peer support was built in – just the fact that we could see each other’s pages was a sort of learning support and push.
Control: How the task is done was completely the responsibility of the learner. There was access to anything on the web and out of it to complete the task and make it as interesting as possible. There was ‘use of resources outside the programme and wide discretion over activities, content and learning outcomes.’
Teacher role: Encourager, time keeper.
Watch out for:
Keeping small groups.
Support each other through email, etc.
Understand social behaviour.
Motivation is built in when work is seen by all and appreciated.
The students had to work out how to create a wiki, identify content, post it, comment on it, improve it, etc.
3. Teacher Determined, Open-ended, strategic:
Typography exercise
The students were asked by the teacher to identify an article in a magazine and recreate it match size and look with the original. Discuss learning online in a blog or chat forum. The second part of the exercise is to redesign the layout giving reasons for each part.
Dialogue: The first part is concentrated to achieve the learnings the tutor identifies.
The second part involves student control and self learnings.
Involvement: The assignment would start with the learner learning about different type specifications and look and feel. The students can be encouraged to go online and understand what influences layout design and typography. The second part would allow the learner to apply new knowledge.
Support: There could be many ways to provide support- through peer feedback given online or offline. There would be no help extended during the application part of the assignment.
Control: The learner controls what he/she learns about layout design. The learners can manage own learning and discoveries during the execution of the assignment.
Teacher role: Guide
4. Learner Directed, Open-ended strategic:
Mentoring paper,
Final case-study
Dialogue: The learning is completely learner lead- the identification of topic for research. There is a choice of discussion groups on the web. Possibility of using web tools and techniques to communicate and maintain dialogue in the activity.
Involvement: Because the topic of research is learner motivated, student involvement is also high. “ Learners relate the learning to their own personal, vocational and academic needs.”
Support: The learner can reach out to the teacher for help, feedback, etc. over email, etc. The teacher can be “ in the background, offering advice on procedures and resources. The structure and design of the online learning facilities provide a framework of support within which the learner has considerable discretion.”
Control: “ The learner determines the goals and outcomes and monitors progress.”
Teacher role: Facilitator
What is the meaning and duties of the teacher as an instructor, coach, guide and facilitator?
Teacher as Instructor: Source of information. E.g. lecturer
Teacher as Coach: “Your role shifts from one of control of what and how students learn to one of mediation of student learning. This coaching role requires teachers to be as engaged in learning as their students and to develop a sense of flow in our teaching beliefs, actions, and decisions.
In PBL, coaching is a process of goal setting, modeling, guiding, facilitating, monitoring, and providing feedback to students to support their active and self-directed thinking and learning.
Teachers accomplish these goals by encouraging as much active learning as possible and by finding ways to make students’ thinking visible.”
Teacher as facilitator: “Engages in negotiation, stimulates and monitors discussion and project work but does not control.”
Teacher as guide: “Helps students to construct their own meaning by modeling, mediating, explaining when needed, redirecting focus, providing options”
Teacher as co-learner or co-investigator: “Teacher considers self as learner; willing to take risks to explore areas outside his or her expertise; collaborates with other teachers and practicing professionals.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
