|
|
Learning Technology publication of IEEE Computer Society |
|
|
Volume 9
Issue 2 |
ISSN
1438-0625 |
April 2007 |
Learners’ profiling by data driven
approaches
HotKey Coach: Training users to
interact efficiently with software applications
Evaluation of Training – A Critique
of Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model
Welcome to the April 2007 issue of Learning Technology.
Many advances in learning technologies are happening throughout the world. This issue focuses in bringing these new developments and emerging technologies to the readers. This issue contains papers ranging from practical learning technology solutions to evaluation of training.
Wanless-Sobel and Alcorn looks at ways to increase the student participation in
discussion forums in eLearning with the use of student mentors. Wanless-Sobel
and Alcorn argues that by removing the residual hierarchy in online
instruction student participation in discussion forums will be increased.
Hence, they use student mentors as facilitators of these forums instead of
lecturers to find out if student participation increases. Viola et. al. looks
at learner profiling using data driven approaches. Colace and DeSanto outlines
the URO Project which is designed to use eLearning as a bridge between the
patient and a health professional. eLearning bridge in this project provides
the patients with the necessary answers from a professional who works at home, in the community
and in the hospital.
Bose
provides a critical analysis of Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model while Veglis describes how Microsoft
Homepage Starter Kit can be used to teach Content Management Systems. Finally,
Krisler and Alterman look at a system which trains users to become experts in
using software.
This newsletter focuses publishing new and emerging technologies in education focussing on advanced learning technologies and its usage in different contexts. Please feel free to bring forward your ideas and views.
Besides, if you are involved in research and/or implementation of any aspect of advanced learning technologies, I invite you to contribute your own work in progress, project reports, case studies, and events announcements in this newsletter. For more details, please refer author guidelines at http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/authors.html.
|
Ali Fawaz
Shareef, PhD Director, Centre for Open Learning |
Abstract: Current
pedagogical theory promotes high social presence and democratic space in online
instruction. This case study shares an experiment with four online classes
featuring an online student mentor to increase social presence and democratic
contact zone quotients by way of the mentor’s coaching personality as well as
the creation of a “safe house” discussion forum in each class, completely
administered by the mentor. The preliminary trial indicates increased social
presence, along with increased student satisfaction with the online learning
experience, although a good portion of student participation was observational
and peripheral,
suggesting the safe-house design requires further
development for nurturing an active democratic contact zone.
Keywords: Distance learning, social presence, democratic contact zone, online student mentor, pedagogical safe-house, lurking, peripheral participation
Introduction
21st
century online educators need to situate students in prime and authentic
learning environments (Herrington, 2003), and one feature of a prime learning
environment is the social presence of the instructor and class members. Research
shows that social presence in computerized instruction—the presence of
humans—increases student satisfaction with courses as well as instructors’
satisfaction (Richardson & Swan, 2003; Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Prime
social presence classes are often choreographed with a variety of social
presence opportunities, allowing for students’ individual preferences (Reeves
& Nass, 1996): frequent and timely
posting; online office hours in synchronous chat; embedded instructor audio
files or other speakers; human avatars with synthesized voices (SitePal.com);
and constructivist, collaborative work with peers in asynchronous or
synchronous discussion.
High social presence
humanizes online education and democratizes power relations (Foucault, 1979,
1980; Zembylas, 2007). Establishing a “democratic contact zone” (Brookfield, 2001,
p.206; Pratt, 1991) in online instruction entails creating and maintaining a
course climate where students feel safe and empowered to engage in public
discourse not only about course material and assignments but also emotional
components of their online experiences, such as
frustration from unreliability of the Internet; stress from juggling
school, work and personal life; apprehension and anxiety about class
assignments; “public” exposure of course work; embarrassment on inability to
perform tasks or perform tasks at a brisk pace; social isolation; and
complaints about the course instructor (O’Regan, 2003.) Because affective domains of knowledge are
recognized and valued in a democratic contact zone, there is tacit
encouragement for critical discourse, along with associational qualities for
democracy, which, in turn, nurture autonomous and thoughtful class activity
(Zembylas, 2007).
In online
instruction, high social presence and a democratic contact zone are worthy
goals, but they are also utopian intentions that easily fall short, leaving
typical dystopian outcomes (Miller, 2001), such as unsuccessful course
completion rates; student dissatisfaction with the online learning; and the
prevalence of the online silent or passive majority, whose lack of interaction,
intellectually and affectively, inhibits their active, constructivist learning.
Dystopian outcomes, especially in regard to student passivity, have been
typical for Colette Wanless-Sobel, an online instructor and one of this essay’s
authors. In an effort to maximize social
presence and a democratic contact zone, the over-riding question for
Wanless-Sobel has been, “What is hindering social presence and a
more democratic, participatory culture in online instruction?”
After
reflection, Wanless-Sobel hypothesized that, power relations in online classrooms are
still residually hierarchical and, therefore, inhibit social presence and
democratic activity, especially in terms of majority interaction. In other words,
although Wanless-Sobel casts herself as learning facilitator and fellow
knowledge-builder, students, who still cast themselves as subordinates and who
rightfully question how much power students actually have vis a vis the instructor and the institution, may be wary of
affective and democratic pronouncements, especially since Wanless-Sobel is
still the person in charge--the individual who dispenses the grades. (This
issue is an important one for social presence and democratic space in online
instruction but is beyond the scope of this case study.) Furthermore, residual
hierarchy in online instruction is attributable to students’ (and the
instructor’s) years of built-up experience of how one is supposed to be and act in a class: knowledge resides
with only the instructor, who maintains the dominant discourse; course work and
activity is issued only from the instructor; students follow instructions;
students do not create their own knowledge base; and emotional and affective
expressions have strict rules of conduct (Zembylas, 2007).
Residual hierarchy,
whatever the cause, is antithetical to social presence and a democratic
zone. Perhaps, Wanless-Sobel surmised,
hierarchy or power needs to be disrupted, and a “safe house” zone needs to be
actively nurtured in order to increase the level of social presence and
“democracy.” The adoption of the term safe house for this purpose is to connote online space where students can
seek sanctuary and protection from academic authority—namely, the
instructor’s-- as well as an
infrastructure to safely experiment with “subversive,” non-hierarchical course
activity and new norms of classroom behaviour.
Based on this idea,
Wanless-Sobel devised a pedagogical design test to see in what ways the social
presence-democratic zone quotient would increase by adding two inter-related
components to the online classroom: an online student mentor as student
coach–advocate and a “safe house” discussion forum completely administered by a
student mentor, where students can post anonymous questions and concerns about
the course all term, and where the course instructor is limited to lurking (ATIS Telecon Glossary).The student mentor’s job would be to respond to
forum questions, using as a knowledge base her or his personal experience as a
student in online instruction, along with instructor consults. Wanless-Sobel conceived both mentor and
safe-house forum as pedagogical elements that would subvert not only the
instructor’s course dominance but also the teacher-student hierarchy, while simultaneously
encouraging peer to peer dialogic activity. Thus, rather than information
dispensed only from the instructor, students could opt to “informally” gather
information from a peer, the online mentor, in a student platform that provides
a supportive knowledge culture, with the instructor having no visible presence.
This short essay
provides a case study on the design and test-run of these social presence-democratic
zone components, bringing together lessons learned about how to
choreograph online engagement, and a point of departure for asking questions
about future instructional design directions.
Situating the Case: Institutional and Student Frameworks
The online mentor and
safe house discussion forums were tested in four online classes at Inver Hills
Community College (hereafter, “Inver Hills”), Inver Grove Heights, MN, an
eastern suburb of the Twin Cities, where one of the authors, Wanless-Sobel,
teaches part-time and the other author, Amanda Alcorn, is a student in law
enforcement. Innovation in online education is a priority at Inver Hills, whose
course management system is Desire 2Learn (hereafter, “D2L.”). Inver Hills supports faculty efforts in
online course development through grant money, technology support, lap top
computer allocation, continuing education (CTL, 2004), and, most recently, an
Online Student Mentoring Program, developed by Landon Pirius, Director of
Enrolment and Online Services at Inver Hills, who used Walden University’s Online Concierge
Program and Lake Superior College’s Online Student Mentor Program as models
while also allowing more flexibility in terms of how instructors can make use
of the mentors in their classes (Pirius, 2007).The rationale for the Online
Student Mentor Program
is the online mentor is a D2L veteran and can share her or his experiences with
current D2L students, making practical suggestions as the class proceeds and
offering coaching support, although the online student mentor can also be used
to assist with the heavier clerical and record-keeping workload accompanying
online instruction (Cavanaugh, 2005; Doube, 2000).
Online Mentors at
IHCC are recruited from the student body, which ranges in
age from sixteen on up and comprises a diverse demographic: high school students; two-year college students;
paraprofessional students; four year degree candidates; displaced workers; and
life-long learners. African Americans, Asian Americans, and Mexican
Americans often comprise the student body as do recent émigrés from various
countries in Africa,
In
spring 2007, Wanless-Sobel had four D2L classes she planned on integrating a
student mentor and safe-house:” Research Writing in the Disciplines,” two
sections; “Creative Problem Solving”; and “Human Sexuality.” Alcorn, a former
“Research Writing in the Disciplines” student, approached her about working as
a student mentor, and Wanless-Sobel readily agreed, as Alcorn had previously
demonstrated intellectual ability, a personable online presence, and a high
comfort level with computers and online instruction. Until her work with
Alcorn, Wanless-Sobel had no previous online student mentor experience,
although she had worked with teaching assistants in classes she had taught at
the
The
venture was new for both Alcorn and Wanless-Sobel, but the goals were certain: increased social
presence and scaffolding for a democratic contact zone. The
questions were, “How to make best use of Alcorn as the student
mentor?” and “How should the safe-zone be constructed in the online
environment?”
The Student Mentor’s Autogenesis and the Creation of Central Perk
Out of habit, Wanless-Sobel, as the educational “expert” and
“professional,” solely set about answering these questions, bypassing Alcorn,
the student mentor. When Wanless-Sobel realized she was falling into old
teacher-student behaviour patterns of the analogue educational world,
however, she paused and reflected: In a
digital and democratic educational environment, her role, as an educator, is not to
oversee public access to knowledge; no longer does she act as gatekeeper to
what is produced, what is shown and how it is interpreted. In a digital world of infinitely replicable and
malleable
content, this behaviour pattern no longer applies. The full
implications of digital environments for educators, educational institutions
and students are not yet clear, although private, public and third sector
innovations, from Amazon to Wikipedia to Second Life and MySpace,
are revolutionizing the digital landscape and suggesting possible directions.
The conclusion from
these ruminations is that, perhaps Wanless-Sobel is not the person who should
solely direct the creation of the online safe space or the role of the online
student mentor. If she truly wishes to
disrupt hierarchical relationships in the online classroom and maximize social
presence, then her own behaviour and role in the online environment must change
and evolve, and what better way to begin than by allowing Alcorn, the online
mentor, autonomy and independence, both in her mentoring job and in the online
safe-houses she would be operating, although Wanless-Sobel could oversee all
activity behind the scene. In other
words, Wanless-Sobel needed to give up control and empower Alcorn by letting
her characterize her mentoring role to some extent and also design the online
safe-house.
Alcorn and Wanless-Sobel conferenced in-person and online for two weeks,
discussing and negotiating Alcorn’s mentoring responsibilities and how she
should conduct the safe-house. The actual design of the safe house was
uncertain for a time, although both women agreed that Wanless-Sobel would
create a D2L DISCUSSION forum in each of the classes for Alcorn, placing each
forum as the top forum in each class DISCUSSION, increasing its visibility and
accessibility for students. Alcorn would then conceptualize the safe-house
design and Wanless-Sobel would then enter the design into D2L.
The design Alcorn came up with for the safe-house was ingenious. Her idea was to integrate or “mash” the highly popular Generations X / Y television series Friends, which is syndicated world-wide (http://www.answers.com/topic/friends-1/), with the D2L Discussion forum, making use of the series’ coffee shop, Central Perk, as an auto-poetic expression of friendliness and connectedness, a student space that acknowledges affective and pleasurable dimensions of the class.