Southern Cross University

Keywords: Online learning, Internet, www, collaboration, collaborative technologies , tertiary teaching, pilot study.

Article style and source: Peer Reviewed. Original ultiBASE publication. Paper originally presented at the '6th International Literacy & Education Research Network Conference on Learning' Bayview Beach Resort, Penang, Malaysia on the 27-30 September 1999.

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• The Pilot Project
• The Design Phase
• The Delivery Phase
• The Evaluation Phase
  • Staff Perceptions
  • Student Perceptions
• Conclusion
• References

Abstract

This paper contributes to the emerging body of literature on online learning. There are already promising indications that the Web is a viable means to increase access to education. Evidence is not as forthcoming when the Web is used as a tool for learning, as opposed to a medium for delivering. Accordingly, this paper describes a pilot program involving the design, delivery and evaluation phases of a suite of courses within an undergraduate program at Southern Cross University. A central research question was to what extent do these newer collaborative technologies improve the quality of the overall learning of distance education students studying completely online?

During the six months long development phase staff engaged in a collaborative and dynamic approach to the design of the online materials. Important issues fundamental to the notion of academic freedom arose during this phase. In the delivery phase pitfalls in moving from the design to the implementation stage are put forward. Chief amongst these is the tendency to move students too far too soon in terms of embracing new technology. During the evaluative phase, data showed that while interactivity served the purpose of fulfilling both academic and social needs of a geographically disparate group of adult learners, it became evident that computer-based collaboration rests upon a different set of assumptions about the nature of learning. Outcomes were linked to theories of situated cognition which pay particular attention to the social context within which learning occurs. A number of developmental strategies are suggested.

Introduction

The Twentieth Century has seen the advent of unprecedented change in the area of information technology including collaboration between students and faculty, simulated environments, electronic books, digital libraries and virtual universities with a global presence . The new environments introduce exciting potential for education, including new approaches to knowledge creation and new ways of learning. Today more than two thirds of America’s four year degree granting institutions offer courses online. For the most part these courses involve the conversion of text-based materials into HTML for delivery over the Web. Further, they are predominantly for internal students or those operating in a mixed internal-external mode. Progress is essentially self-paced. Interactivity, while a feature of these offerings, involves synchronous and asynchronous discussions with other students and tutors using e-mail (Owston, 1997). The social and academic benefits of this type of interactivity have been well documented (Jones, 1999). The focus of this paper, however, is the evaluation of the collaborative aspects of online learning. Although collaborative learning is not a new topic, the idea of computer supported collaborative learning is (Cerratto and Belisle, 1995) and certainly within the context of flexible delivery techniques associated with distance education (McDonald and Postle, 1999).

The broad issues surrounding the online delivery of education appear to be technological, administrative, instructional and academic . A question of interest here is to what extent does computer based collaborative learning rest on different epistemological assumptions and therefore, require the development of new and special pedagogies? Traditionally, in higher education the communication of course material has rested primarily with the instructor . With these newer technologies, however, some of the responsibility for knowledge building is shifted to the student, and in particular with activities requiring collaboration. Here, it is important to reflect on the manner in which the mutual engagement of students in a co-operative vein to solve a problem re-positions the tutor’s role from that of the authority figure and source of all information to one of facilitator and resource guide (Koschman, 1996). This move reinforces the importance of peer interaction for cognitive development (Piaget, 1985) and more significantly can be interpreted from within the emergent paradigm of constructivism with its emphasis on the social context in which learning occurs. Computer supported collaborative learning allows students, amongst other things, to interact asynchronously through discussion lists which are capable of archiving the products of their interaction. This in turn leads to the creation of new and shared understandings about the topic under study. The assessment of the potential of this kind of knowledge building is at the core of this research project. top

The Pilot Project

In July 1998, the School of Social and Workplace Development (SaWD) began the process of developing the Bachelor of Social Science for online delivery to distance education students. A decision was made to adopt an off-the-shelf commercial product rather than custom write course software. Accordingly, Southern Cross entered into an agreement with IBM to acquire the use of LearningSpace as a delivery shell. The software is compatible with Lotus Notes but may also be used in conjunction with a browser. LearningSpace is a multipurpose classroom allowing online collaboration as well as self-paced individual learning using multi media materials. LearningSpace provides five components:

• Schedule – includes the day-by-day orientation notes for each session as well as the course outline and assessment details;
• Media Centre – is the place for tutors and students to access files, web links and class notes;
• Course Room – is an online discussion forum;
• Profiles – contain biographical information about tutor and course participants; and
• Assessments – a separate module enabling online quizzes and exams.

In addition, Lotus Notes has a replication capability to allow students to update recently added course information and discussion. Students then have the capacity to disconnect from the network and still work inside LearningSpace ‘offline’. top

The Design Phase

Most of the early approaches to online learning were developed by individual academics working in relative isolation (Taylor, 1998). At Southern Cross a Project Team was assembled that included six academics, along with a core of support staff who provided technical advice and assistance. The five units chosen for online delivery in first semester 1999 centred around the Human Resource Development major and included the following:

• Learning, Communicating and Educational Computing
• The Development of Human Resources
• Leadership
• Staff Selection and Appraisal
• An Introduction to Human Resource Management

Strategies were evolved for transforming conventional external study materials to a format thought optimal for computer supported collaborative learning. Staff drew freely on their collective expertise in adult learning and human resource development since these areas reflected their disciplinary interests. Although the process was initially viewed as a staff development exercise it was also concerned with the management of change. Hence, an action learning model was employed since it quickly became evident that online learning theory and research is still in an emergent state. According to McGill & Beatty (1996)

action learning is a continuous process of learning and reflection, supported by colleagues, within an intention of getting things done. Through action learning individuals learn with and from each other by working on real problems and reflecting on their own experiences (p21).

Hence, action research involves learning from investigation, making decisions about necessary changes, applying these and evaluating the consequences (Zuber-Skerritt ,1992). Kemmis (1991) crystallised this concept by defining four major phases of planning, acting, observing and reflecting which the ‘action research’ cycle moves through. Gummesson (1991) refers to this cyclical structure as a hermeneutic spiral since each turn of the spiral builds on the understanding flowing out of the previous turn. Further, it is important that those responsible for the practice of the action maintain collaborative control of the process. Accordingly, both action learning and collaboration constituted the professional development tools for the design phase of the online project.

Twice weekly meetings allowed the project team to engage in philosophical and academic discussions about the range of opportunities made possible by these newer technologies. Existing online courses were examined. While it was agreed that online learning would go a long way towards dissipating feelings of isolation that traditional distance education students experience, it was less certain how students would react to the concept of collaboration on group assessment tasks given the independent nature of the typical distance education learner accustomed to self-paced learning. Caution was also expressed about the risks of being driven by technological determinism. The possible adoption of powerfully seductive features such as streaming video, synchronous chat rooms and digitised lectures accompanied by Powerpoint presentations were weighed against their pedagogical value and scrutinised in the light of the dangers of attempting to move the students too far too fast. Ongoing discussions were archived on a discussion list to which all project members subscribed.

In tandem with the above, staff were provided with training in the use of various course delivery software. Throughout this phase developers unveiled successive blueprints of their course outlines and sought feedback from the project team. top

The Delivery Phase

In terms of the scope of this paper, this section is necessarily short. In the first semester, 66 students were enrolled in the online units in what constituted a third mode of delivery for the School. Students were sent a package advising them of basic hardware requirements. Included was a CD containing necessary software along with printed instructions for installing LearningSpace. Once the semester commenced the Online Support Team was inundated with calls from students experiencing a range of technological problems. Because of ongoing frustrations 50% elected to drop out of the online format and revert to the conventional external studies mode. For those who persevered there was significant variance in the use made of LearningSpace features. For example, students made differing use of the Course Room to post and monitor discussions. Some developed their own online discussion forums to support their studying and teamwork. Here submissions could be marked ‘private’ and read only by members of their group. Others tended to use Learning Space to pace their own individual learning. In any event, in view of the attrition rate, it was clear that the front-end learning curve required to master LearningSpace in the time allocated was too steep for many students. top

The Evaluation Phase

Staff Perceptions

Staff completed weekly diaries containing personal reflections of their involvement. In addition staff were interviewed at the outset of the design phase and again at the conclusion of the delivery phase at which time a number of Focus Groups containing key stakeholders were also conducted. Aspects relating to staff development are reported elsewhere (Ellis and Phelps, 1999). The focus here is on technological, instructional and academic issues.

To begin with, the amount of time and effort involved in the delivery phase was far in excess of expectations and judged to be more than that required for face-to-face teaching or operating an off-campus course. One academic indicated that LearningSpace proved to be inherently more difficult to teach in than to develop in. The root of the problem was the technological problems encountered by students. Because the preparation of units for online delivery was labour intensive and resource heavy, it was felt that much more time needed to be allocated for training and development. Clearly, the use of LearningSpace presented significant challenges for staff who had no previous experience with this particular commercial product.

In terms of instructional issues, while it was acknowledged that collaboration was a highly desirable feature of online delivery and enhanced student learning outcomes, that interaction came at a price as we shall presently see.

Perhaps the most important issue which concerned staff was the question of ‘ownership’. Many academics, accustomed to exercising autonomy with respect to developing and delivering learning materials, openly resisted the role the Information Technology department of the university assumed in making decisions that were often seen as having pedagogical overtones. To illustrate, the decision to proceed with LearningSpace as the course delivery shell was made despite the growing conviction from the majority of the academic staff developers that it would prove to be problematic for students. The manner in which these decisions were taken was interpreted by some staff as signaling a shift in university governmentality from one of supporting a culture of teaching, learning and research to one which is setting off down a path of hyper-competitiveness where technologisation and globalisation are becoming the driving forces (Kenway and Langmead, 1998). To the extent that this is true, academics are being relegated to role of ‘knowledge workers’ while at the same time power flows increasingly to the upper echelons of the university to those who manage and market that knowledge. As Green (1999) notes, the idea that knowledge could be managed separately from academics in whose heads it resides was seen as invidious by the staff of SaWD. From this concern emerged a consensus regarding the necessity of staff being involved in academic policy decisions. top

Student Perceptions

A central question to this research was to investigate how these collaborative technologies relate to the quality of the overall learning experienced by students studying completely online. In particular, it is important to establish whether the Web can function as a tool for improved learning rather than simply operate as a medium for the delivery of content. To date no research has been able to demonstrate consistent significant effects on learning from the use of specific educational media.

Accordingly, prior to commencing the study each student was asked to complete a survey adapted from Creed (1996) which aimed to ascertain their entry level computer skills along with their beliefs, values and reported levels of self-confidence regarding the amount of time and effort required to study online. At the end of the semester, students were again surveyed with a view to assessing levels of satisfaction as well as measuring any shifts in perception regarding online learning. Qualitative data were analysed using Scenario (Brooks, 1997) and revealed the following themes of significance for this paper.

Interactivity – Respondents indicated that a consistent level of interaction between instructor and student is highly valued.

• This was a wonderful experience. Lots of interaction between students and lecturer
• The ability to interact with the lecturer more frequently via online delivery has been wonderful

Of greater value was the asynchronous discussion initiated and sustained by student to student interaction. Most students attributed their deeper understanding of the material under study to the opportunity to interact with other students.

• It was my first contact with other students and I thought it was great
• You have the ability to brainstorm. That’s hard to do alone

• The group work online was really interactive and that helped my learning
• Exposure to others’ views is essential (or) we become narrow and judgmental.
• Enjoyed the experience of group interaction by online communication – preferable to traditional external studies.

By archiving the ‘threads of conversation’, the discussion list preserved every contribution for future examination, elaboration, and extension (Owston, 1997). The result was a richer, more thoughtful discussions that arose out of shared understandings which in turn contributed to a different kind of knowledge building from that which students are able to accomplish on their own.

It is important to recognise that interactivity which occurs online is qualitatively different from that which takes place in a face-to-face environment. In most instances a sense of immediacy is missing along with an absence of non-verbal cues. Yet, despite these shortcomings and because of the sense of isolation inherent in distance education, interactivity held a greater meaning and importance for the participants in this online study than might be the case for students encountering traditional face to face teaching. It was front-line contact for them and allowed them to share their understanding of concepts and experience diverse and multiple feedback ahead of that received from the unit instructor. Hence, this kind of interactivity served the dual purpose of fulfilling both academic and social needs of a geographically disparate group of adult learners.

Student Learning Outcomes - The key question here which was put to the respondents was ‘If you had a choice, would you prefer to undertake this unit using the `traditional or online model?’ Interestingly the pretest data indicate ambivalence about the preferred format as the following comments indicate:

• Undecided yet. As with everything the first time you attempt something in a different format, it is difficult. I believe once I get the 'hang of it', it will be just as good as traditional way.
• At this point it is difficult to know because it is such a change. Ask again when I have completed it. For me its too early to judge.
• It is new and different - I've never done an external unit.

However, posttest responses reflected almost unanimous support for pursuing the online delivery:

• A thoroughly enjoyable learning experience… eliminated the isolation of being an external student
• Studying online increased my ability to learn
• I really enjoyed the combination of audio and visual delivery, it was an excellent way to learn.

• (feedback) … the fact that you receive it faster than conventional mail is great
• Once I was online, my learning experience was great and much more enjoyable than traditional methods

• I think the online model is great. More info condensed.
• I consider myself computer literate so can happily answer ‘1’{prefer online}, realising that our struggles can only improve the teaching for future online students
• At times it really didn’t feel as taxing as slogging away at books

Moreover, the quality of learning attainable through the online mode was judged to be superior overall to conventional distance education formats with 71% of respondents believing they had achieved more than they would have through the traditional off-campus mode. One reported:

• I got a Distinction for my online subject and a Pass for my print-based one.

A minority of students, however, expressed reservations about continuing their studies online and for the most part these concerns were not associated with either the content or the assessment of the unit. Consequently, any attempt to fully assess the discipline-based learning outcomes of computer supported learning was contaminated by the frustrations associated with technological problems students experienced when installing and/or using LearningSpace as the following responses indicate.

• My stress levels peaked at a new high when I was unable to get access to the course until Easter. I continued to be well behind which is not my normal studying method.
• (in opting for conventional off-campus teaching) This is due to technical difficulties not the course content.
• Too much time spent on learning how to use LearningSpace

Collaboration - While distance learning students uniformly valued the interaction with the tutor and each other, they were divided regarding the value of collaboration in relation to group assignments. 59% of students indicated negative reactions to the concept of online collaboration which led to a shared grade. Jones (1999) also found significant disquiet amongst students submitting group assignments. Clearly, requiring distance education students accustomed to individualised, self-paced learning to engage in collaborative group-based activities is problematic. Collaborative learning hinges on a certain degree of co-operation amongst students and this was not always forthcoming as exemplified by the following comments.

• It was extremely frustrating depending on other people and their time frames
• The slowness and lack of response of the other student meant I went ahead and did most of the work. Which made it rather pointless. I’m better off working alone when my marks depend on it.
• I think ‘collaboration’ needs to be outlined more succinctly…I would have gotten more if other students had been prepared to communicate
• I am not a fan of group assignments although I do consider group discussions worthwhile

More attention needs to be paid to each learner’s basic communication needs when operating in a group. To function effectively the group needs to develop cohesion (King, 1999) and yet computer supported communication is lacking in human presence (Berge and Collins, 1996). Consequently, the context is devoid of important visual and spatial-temporal cues that are important for message validation and, therefore, the building up of trust. Time is needed to develop the necessary social protocols before successful collaboration can take place as the following excerpts show.

• …liaising in a time frame that suits me has been difficult
• It was difficult to catch others as everyone studied at different times… I had to wait for others to get back to me.
• The difficulty is getting everyone to communicate before time runs out and the assignment is due.

In light of the above, the essentially negative view of the group-based collaborative assignment is understandable. More attention needs to be given to ways in which these social issues can be brought into the foreground to facilitate the process of knowledge building. Clearly collaboration was a major driving force for the development of the networked learning model for course delivery by academics within SaWD. Likely the process of developing a shared community of practice, as situated cognition theorists advocate (Koschmann, 1996), was made easier by the already well established levels of trust that staff had built up over time. The challenge ahead is how to create those conditions for students studying online.

Computer competency – The final theme to emerge related to student learning outcomes of a non disciplined-based nature and concerned the finding that online learning afforded students the opportunity to develop unique online research skills (Hayden, Saenger and Parry, 1999). Prior to the beginning of the study, the demographic profile revealed most to be of mature age with only 20% under 25. While the majority reported an ability to use email and navigate freely on a browser many lacked the competence, and therefore the confidence, needed to move comfortably into an environment designed to support collaborative learning. More than half had never participated in a group discussion online. Yet, by the end of the course 91% reported enhanced skills in cyber-navigation techniques. top

Conclusion

Despite the promising advances in the delivery of online courses, there remains much to be done in terms of promoting the collaborative aspects of computer assisted learning. If meaningful and useful collaboration is to become an integral part of computer assisted education, it is essential that the students are motivated to participate. It is crucial, therefore, that there are shared goals with the purpose of the collaboration having been agreed to by all participants. Finally, those issues associated with ‘technology-mastering’ need to be addressed and resolved for both students and staff before meaningful outcomes can be attained.

It also needs to be realised that the Web affords the opportunity for students to learn in new and different ways that are best explained from within a constructivist paradigm. To the extent this is true, then perhaps the assessment of learning outcomes for students is ill served by approaches that view assessment soley within the context of teaching. As Owston (1997, p4) observes ‘we cannot simply ask "Do students learn better with the Web as compared to traditional classroom instruction?"’ but rather seek to investigate how the Web, when used as a tool to promote learning, can lead to the development of independent learners employing higher order cognitive skills. top

References

Brooks, L. S., P. (1997). Scenario. Lismore: University of Southern Cross, R & D Integral Research.

Cerratto, T. & Belisle, C. (1995). Reframing learning in CSCL environments

Collins, M. & Berge, Z. (1996). 'Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses'. Paper presented at the Florida State University Distance Education Conference, Tallahassee, FL, June. http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/moderate/flcc.html

Creed, D. T. (1996). Project ADEPT (Assessment of Distance Education Pedagogy and Technology). http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~tcreed/adept/desrv1.html

Ellis, A. & Phelps, R. (1999). Staff development for online delivery: A collaborative team-based action learning model. Lismore, School of Social & Workplace Development, Southern Cross University.

Felder, R. M. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.

Green, M. (1999). Developments in online delivery, Training Agenda, 7, (2) 11-12.

Gummesson, E. (1991). Qualitative methods in management research. Newbury Park: Sage.

Hayden, M., Saenger, H. & Parry, S. (1999). An evaluation of online units delivered in first semester 1999 at Southern Cross University. Report compiled by The Teaching and Learning Centre. Lismore, NSW.

Jones, B. L., Cramton, C.D., Gauvin, S. & Scott, D. (1998). Virtual learning environment : Preparing for the 21st century. Journal of Computer Information Systems 38(4): 1-8.

Jones, D. (1999). 'Solving some problems with university education: Part II', Paper presented at AusWeb99, Fifth Australian World Wide Web Conference, Southern Cross University, Ballina, April, http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw99_archive/aw99/papers/jones/paper.html

Kemmis, S. (1991) Improving education through action research. In Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.). Action research for change and development. Aldershot: Gower.

Kenway, J. & Langmead, D. (1998). Governmentality, the "now" university and the future of knowledge work. Australian Universities Review, 2, 28-32.

King, K. (1999). 'Group dynamics for the online professor'. Paper presented at AusWeb99, Fifth Australian World Wide Web Conference, Southern Cross University, Ballina, April, http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw99_archive/aw99/papers/king/paper.html

Koschmann, T. (1996). Computer supported collaborative learning: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kostopoulos, G. K. (1998). Global delivery of education via the Internet. Internet Research: Networking Applications and Policy 8(3), 10 -12.

McDonald, J. & Postle, G. (1999). Teaching online: Challenge to a reinterpretation of traditional instructional models. Paper presented at AusWeb99, Fifth Australian World Wide Web Conference, Southern Cross University, Ballina, April, http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw99_archive/aw99/papers/mcdonald/paper.htm

McGill, I. & Beatty, L. (1995). Action learning: A guide for professional, management and educational development., London: Kogan Page. Owston, R. D. (1997). The world wide web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational Researcher, 27 (2), 27-33.

Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Taylor, P. (1998). Institutional change in uncertain times: Lone ranging is not enough. Studies in Higher Education, 23 (3) 269-278.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Professional development of higher education: Theoretical framework for action research. London: Kogan Page.

About the author