Telecollaborative exchanges in the classroom - not a panacea for learning

Reflection leads the way forward

“One of the most constructive ways to ascertain the developmental path of a particular phenomenon is to study those instances where it is disrupted, that is, those cases where the system fails” (Belz, 2003, p.76). Belz’s words strike a chord as I approach the end of my first semester of postgraduate online learning. In this final blog, looking back is integral to the learning experience. The learning has impacted on my approach to telecollaborative exchanges in my professional role as an ESL teacher.

The popularity of online language learning is fed by the commercial interests of the software industry and the explosive growth of social networking. Ignoring the potential benefit for learners of this interface would be naïve: overlooking the flaws, equally so.

Finding fault

O’Dowd and Ritter note that “telecollaborative exchanges frequently end in ‘failed communication’ and do not automatically bring about successful negotiation of meaning between the learners” (2006, p.623). This is not a new observation. Kern observed that online exchanges may rather reinforce differences as opposed to bridge them (Kern, 2000, p.256). Other flaws are noticeable, for instance:

·        Communication by email necessitates a stylised way of writing that may lack spontaneity and be a platform for clichéd response in which known sentences and attitudes are presented. It is much easier to present stereotypical responses to questions than to be creative. How do we then get real writing and real communication where genuine response is communicated?

·        The argument for authentic material in the classroom is undeniable. But it may come at a cost when used as the justification for telecollaborative lessons. Working together on blogs or wikis may become a highly sophisticated exercise in social interaction, rather than an exploration and growth of understanding in a particular subject area. My recent learning experience in preparing an elesson for a postgraduate class is that the primary learning was of social negotiation and management of communication tools. Secondary was the targeted subject material. If this is the case in postgraduate adult learners, then how much more energy will be expended by less experienced learners on the support structures of collaborative learning?

·        Some teachers, with substantial demands made on their time and energy already, put the whole idea in the ‘too hard basket’. Already battling against multiple excuses from students for incomplete work, now the new one is that students were unable to connect online to complete the assignment. If the telecollaboration is taking place in the classroom – critical time is lost in ‘connecting’, reducing learning time in class, and reducing the potential output that the student may have produced in class.

·        Some students on the other hand, see telecollaboration as a softening of traditional classroom pedagogy. Telecollaboration is presented as a way to make learning fun. Somehow this is associated in the minds of students as learning that requires less personal effort. Deep cognitive engagement is avoided as they tap into an electronic environment that is strongly identified with social connection, entertainment and pleasure. The gritty experience of challenging mind and memory is avoided.

Persistence pays

So why persist with online learning? What is it that we identify as worthwhile and attractive about this kind of communication?

A reason is that online groups are able to be created that dispense with prejudices: cultural, social, gender and age. Strongly divergent groups are able to interface and potentially engage in a way that might not have been possible face to face for spatial or cultural reasons.

Furthermore, students are exposed to reading / writing and listening / speaking opportunities that reach far beyond the constraints of the classroom. They are able to explore how language works through joint negotiation of meaning, and interface with a range of audiences. They are able to be linguistically more confident in the relative anonymity they have online.

Practical considerations to improve performance  

Podcastings, blogs, emails and wikis all have merit. But there should be a balance of group work, individual work and whole class engagement. The latter should be a time during which learners are encouraged to keep pace as they move along the learning continuum. There should be opportunities for creative work and drilling. There should be ongoing assessments.

 Exploring “the target language and culture at their own time and pace” (Lee, 2009, p.427) is a good idea, but would I dedicate expensive classtime to this? I think not. There should be deadlines, obligatory report back sessions by learners and feedback from teachers.

Success depends predominantly on the teacher who needs to create highly structured elearning environments, with tight scaffolding in which learners have a real sense of direction, with easy integration of elearning applications.

Reference List

Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 68-99.

Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, L. (2009). Promoting intercultural exchanges with blogs and podcasting: a study of Spanish-American telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22 (5). 425-443.

O’Dowd, R. & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and Working with ‘Failed Communication’ in Telecollaborative Exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23 (3), 623-642.

The role of the teacher in elearning

“Is there any body out there?”

The role of the teacher in elearning appears to be shadowed by the central role that is now being played by the learner. Within a traditional context this would not have been the case. The teacher’s position was dominant as the source of all knowledge, and that knowledge was dispensed at his or her own will. The student’s function was largely passive.

Within the elearning environment, this norm seems to have been upended. Within a social constructivist approach, students are now responsible for their own learning. Through interaction and collaboration with other learners, a student is required to construct knowledge through active involvement with other learners and the wider online community (Rovai, 2003). Learners are responsible for taking new information and integrating this knowledge with previous experience. The teacher now has the role of mentor, coach and facilitator, assisting learners in navigating the new environment.

However, it is clear that despite the best intentions and careful planning, learner and teacher may become disconnected. How can this be avoided?

The answer lies within the control of both the learner and the teacher. It is not an issue of “blame”, but may be rather a failure on the part of the learner to appreciate that he is in a new learning environment, and a failure on the part of the teacher to maintain certain of the old style pedagogies in the new setting. 

Let us consider first the role that the learner needs to play in assisting the teacher in finding his or her role. Communication is necessary and simply being online does not insure this. The learner needs to take charge and feel empowered to do so. However the dynamics of online communication are different. Learners may feel more vulnerable as they tentatively present academic argument in the public forum than they would feel in direct verbal conversation. Furthermore, Ham and Davey (2005) found that the asynchronous nature of online learning demotivated learners. They observed that “traditional face-to-face group dynamics still tended to be the yardstick by which the value of the teaching-learning experience was judged, and online pedagogies were by many valued only in proportion to how well they seemed to reproduce or simulate an equivalent face-to-face experience, rather than as a qualitatively different form in itself.” Part of learner education needs to be a reevaluation of these criteria and a conscious embracing of a new style of teacher and teaching.

From the teacher’s perspective, the ease of accessibility of online learning should not be compromised by indifferent delivery and feedback. The strength of traditional (i.e. face-to-face, synchronous) teaching is that student motivation is maintained more successfully through the interpersonal relationship that is more easily developed between student and teacher. Within an elearning environment a blended programme would ensure crucial stages of motivation building through synchronous sessions were included, with a constructivist approach used in collaborative asynchronous threaded discussions and emails.

In conclusion, I suggest that many principles that have governed traditional education are able to be transferred, and should be carried into elearning education. Teachers in their elearning role are faced with different learners requiring extensive interaction and opportunities for collaboration with other learners and their teacher. A teaching presence stimulating dialogue, outlining and prompting course direction and cognitive demands, synthesizing information, is still required. Teachers may benefit by considering their existent pedagogy and adapting it within models such as ASSURE (Analyse the learner, State the learning objectives, select the methods, media and materials to be used in the classroom, Utilise the chosen media and materials, Require learner participation, Evaluate and revise the learning material) (Fennema, 2003, p. 244).

I also suggest that teachers may have abdicated their role as expert in their subject, and too readily taken on the roles of guide and supporter. They may no longer be “the final word” on an issue, but they still have an academic voice that holds sway with their learners and provides learners with an academic base against which to foil further opinion. Utilizing Collins’s cognitive apprenticeship theory (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) where the focus is on "learning-through-guided experience" (Collins et al., 1989, p.457), students may be assisted by the teacher “master” in acquiring an "integrated set of cognitive and metacognitive skills through processes of observation and guided and supported practice" (Collins et al., 1989, p. 481).

It is interesting to note that researchers have found that online teaching is a more lengthy process than face-to-face. This is because of the considerably greater time it may take to “moderate and sustain discussion both with the group and with individuals” (Ham & Davey, 2005). However, it is this communicative relationship that is able to exist between teachers and students, and students and students, that is critical in the teaching process, not just being technologically interactive.

Reference List

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fennema, B. (2003). Preparing faculty members to teach in the e-learning environment. In S.Reisman, S. (Ed.), Electronic Learning Communities. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Ham, V. & Davey, R. (2005). Our first time: two higher education tutors reflect on becoming a 'virtual teacher'. false Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42 (3), 257-264.

Johnston, S. (2010). Teacher transformation with elearning experiences: A case for addressing personal practical theories in academic development. In C.H.Steel, M.J.Keppell, P.Gerbic & Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 463-468).

http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Johnston-concise.pdf

Murphy, K., Mahoney, S., Chen, C.Y., Mendoza-Diaz, N. & Yang, X. (2005). A Constructivist Model of Mentoring, Coaching, and Facilitating Online Discussions. Distance Education, 26 (3), 341-366.

Rovai, A. (2003). A constructivist approach to online college learning. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (2), 79-93.

Considerations in the design of blended learning

“Please mind the gap.”

Introduction

The dangers of assumed knowledge and miscommunication should be at the forefront of every elearning designer’s mind.

Part of the solution to these potential problems is to raise awareness of metacognitive processes by making processes more explicit in the outline of the task. This tends to be regarded by teachers and other learning facilitators as implicit in learners, and is often bypassed.

Assumed knowledge

For learners new to elearning, implicit knowledge may not be there. Teacher assumption of this can result in learners feeling overwhelmed, disengaged, directionless or isolated. The consequences of the latter may be increased drop out rate, or a failure to maximize on possible learning (Simms, Dobbs & Hand, 2002).

I suggest that at the outset of any elearning programme, learners and educators establish the importance of the questions that will be asked for ongoing tasks, and understand that cognitive and metacognitive questions are needed. It may be that as a matter of course, the dominant questions asked in the planning stage of a task be recorded, and a reflective postscript added, in which the learner notes which were the pivotal cognitive and metacognitive questions, and identifies what could have ensured more efficient or effective task completion. Software tools such as the Artemis web-based interface (hrrp;//artemis.goknow.com/artemis/index.adp) incorporates scaffolding for such questioning and note-taking. Lumpe and Butler (2002) found that the use of such organizational scaffolds correlated to improved classroom performance on project-based investigations. 

With the conscious identification of strategies to plan and regulate work, and that feedback being available to the teacher at all stages of the task or programme, teachers will be alerted to potential gaps in the learners’ knowledge or competence, and be able to correct any misconception of assumed knowledge.

It makes learning sense to exploit the benefit of hindsight, and in so doing allow there to be “higher-order learning” through “deep reflection” (Ellis, Goodyear, O’Hara & Prosser, 2007). As a point of note: this reflection may not be evident in online or direct discussion. Mckendree, Stenning, Mayes, Lee & Cox (1998), have observed that learners may reflect through reading or listening without any obvious output being evident. Indeed such learners may be advantaged in that “there is less of a cognitive load” and it allows concentration “on the content and process of what is being said”. If this is the case with particular learners in a group, then there needs to be an alternate way of establishing that appropriate reflection has taken place. Furthermore, reflection allows evaluation and summation to take place, elevating electronic “chatter" to learning.

Miscommunication

A second danger ever-present in an elearning environment is miscommunication. Lacking the input of gesture and tone to confirm understanding, electronic discussion may become convoluted, clumsy and time inefficient. In addition, it may not always be evident when and where there has been miscommunication.

Aware of the potential for there to be misunderstanding in electronic postings, learners may be tentative to engage. With reflective feedback, and a chance through this for the learners to evaluate their learning progress, it may be that they will develop more confidently an online “voice”.

Opportunities for miscommunication will be reduced with a stronger metacognitive scaffold in place, guiding task expectation. Additionally, the danger will be reduced by incorporating a carefully blended design in which a human dimension, involving voice-to-voice or face-to-face communication is included at identifiable strategic points in the learning design, such as the brainstorming phase of learning where there is rapid exchange of ideas. This will allow body language and voice tonality to support and encourage communication. 

Conclusion

The outcome of raising awareness of metacognitive demands of a task will be to put in place “quality control processes” (Simms, Dobbs & Hand, 2002) that hopefully go some way to minding the gap that can unwittingly develop between learners and teachers, learners and learners, and learners and the task.

Reference List

Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., O’Hara, A. & Prosser, M. (2007). The university student experience of face-to-face and online discussions: coherence, reflection and meaning. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology. 15(1), 83-97.

Keller, J.M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.

Lumpe, A. & Butler, K. (2002).  The Information Seeking Strategies of High School Science Students. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 549-566.

McKendree, J., Stenning, K. Mayes, T., Lee, J. & Cox, R. (1998). Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 110-119.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G. & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-148.

Elearning in TESOL

“No homework today!”    

The welcome cry of every student liberated from the classroom echoes down corridors, across crowded buses, and immediately phones are out to text and chat out plans for the evening.

Harnessing online chat for language development and fluency, seems obvious. It maximizes hours out the classroom for language growth, and happens in such a way that natural communication patterns of an individual are exploited. Win – win for teacher and student. Perfect solution – or is it?

Conian and Wong (2004) conducted a pilot study exploring the use of Internet Relay Chat (IRC) facilities as a way of facilitating English second language development (e.g. MSM or ICQ). Positive outcomes were that the use of IRC increased motivation with students communicating on subjects of interest to them, and at their own pace. It also strengthened the particular grammatical foundation in the area of focus (namely, finite verbs).

However, the effectiveness of the overall learning utilizing IRC out the classroom should not be over-rated. Speech discourse is limited when the communication is exclusively amongst peers. Range of vocabulary and grammar structure will tend to be restricted and take advantage of brief partial utterances. Students need to be encouraged to “notice” (Schmidt, 1990) their usage of the targeted grammar feature. Schmidt argues that this is crucial in order to convert “input to intake”. Students need to have further opportunity to comment and reflect on instances where they may have struggled to target the selected grammar feature effectively; they need class time to share when they felt inconfident as language users; and collaborate with peers and instructors to find fluent solutions. It could be that to maximize advantage of IRC students need to upload a “page” of chat to a communal blog that is dedicated exclusively for the use of that particular group of students. It would open opportunities for class discussion and correction that private IRC would not. The blending of “homework time” with class time, of spontaneous communication with guided learning, would provide opportunities to work on the pronunciation of online utterances, and identify other associated words that may be able enrich the students’ lexicon. A transfer from online language fluency to face to face language fluency would take place.

Of course, it may be argued, this would then limit spontaneous expression by the students. But the range of use of the targeted grammar feature would be wider and approached with heightened consciousness.

With increased importance attached to the connection between students outside of school hours it stands to reason that the traditional learning hierarchy of teacher to student will be challenged and that there will be an increase of student to student learning. “The opportunity for … a new social dynamic” (Warschauer, Turbee & Roberts, 1996) will be created. Peterson (1997) also notes this change in interaction pattern between student and teacher. It appears that the role of the student is changing from one of passivity to being an initiator of learning. 

Initially, not all students may feel comfortable with the technical demands of “Generation Y” styled homework, nor may they have the social ease to engage in frequent and rapid fire online chat. SchMOOze and Dave’s ESL internet café are 2 internet sites that students are able to use as launch pads into this synchronous communication. (Both described in some depth by Kitao).The transition from a class time task, in which this occurs with technical support and with scaffolding for the specific linguistic outcomes desired, to independent out of hours “homework” needs to be gradual. Furthermore once the homework practice is established, continual follow up needs to occur in class to retain motivation and ensure that noticing of language patterns, vocabulary enrichment and language fluency – written and oral, are occurring on a daily basis.

Reference List

Chun, D.M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, pp.17-31

Conian, D. & Wong, R. (2004). Internet Relay Chat as a tool in the autonomous development of ESL learners’ English language ability: an exploratory study: System, 32, pp.321-335

Kitao, S.K. (1998). Interaction and on-line synchronous communication in English language learning. CALL-EJ, vol.3, No.1. Available from terrefhttp://www.lerc.ritsumei.ac.jp/callej/index.htmlurlhttp://www.lerc.ritsumei.ac.jp/callej/index.html.

Peterson, M. (1997). Language teaching and networking. System, 25(1), pp.29-37

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), pp.129-158

Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1), pp.1-14