Testing – One, Two

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31442459@N00/3401102797

I was lucky enough to be invited to join an ELESIG Webinar yesterday – facilitated by Dr Rhona Sharpe, as part of the SLiDA project.  Perhaps naively, I thought I was just going to listen and perhaps answer a couple of questions – but then realised Rhona actually had me down to present about our involvement in SLiDA and more specifically how our work with Learner Owned Devices was actually a bottom-up revolution – driven by  the learners’ valid academic need to connect up to our systems.  I think the whole webinar will be available via ELESIG Ning.

It was a really interesting Webinar and was refreshing to hear what colleagues from other institutions were doing in similar fields and how their work is being fed into SLiDA.

After a slight technical hitch with my headset microphone – all went well and I guess everyone could hear me.  I found the content to be really useful and also gained some valuable experience as to how a good webinar is conducted.

Social cues: when less is more

Obvious aspect of mediated communication technologies, whether it is a hand written letter, telephone call or text message, is the reduction in the number of cues they convey when compared to face-to-ace communication… We lose visual and dynamic cues… also the immediacy of feedback – makes coordination of communication more difficult.

“All communications media attenuate to at least some degree the social context cues available in face-to-face conversation. The telephone reduces dynamic and static cues by eliminating visual information about the communicators. Letters and memos reduce static cues by imposing standardized format conventions; they eliminate dynamic cues altogether.”

Sproull and Kiesler (1986, pp. 1495-6)

One of the early predictions resulting from research on computer-mediated communication (CMC) was that the medium is well suited to conveying plain information, but unsuitable for carrying socio-emotional information… Since social presence was assumed to be important in determining the quality of communication, it naturally followed that any communication technology that lacked social presence would be inferior to face-to-face interaction.

Walther (1994) argued that what mattered wasn’t the absolute amount of socialness of a technology, but rather the rate at which social information was exchanged. Utz (2000) supports this notion that mediated communication is not, by its nature, less social or less suitable for collabortive activities… Users develop ‘paralanguage’ (Walther, 1992)… Warkentin and Beranek (1999) suggest that once people have the tools for conveying socio-emotional content, any disadvantage is removed.

Well I never…

It is true – you learn something new every day.

I did not know that ‘Virtual Classroom’ is a registered trademark of New Jersey Institute of Technology – taken directly from Dr. Starr Roxanne Hiltz’s website.

So there you go.

Week 1 – end

Having now had the chance to reflect more on Reading, 1 and fitting it into my mental timeline, I guess that this research paper was quite ahead of its time. Putting it into context with developments in other IT fields; the idea of computer collaboration amongst students (outside of the Computer Science labs) was quite unheard of.

There are a number of incarnations of CMC that I have been aware of as an OU student (using First Class). How those earlier versions now seem pretty primitive – but this was only due to the underlying technology available at the time. Think of your own Internet experience of the late 80′s early 90′s (for those of us who were there!) – very limited (though very amazing at the time). Do you remember your first email? What did the interface look like?
I remember saying “wow” about – Mosaic, Newsgroups and Gopher…

This leads me to think that it has only really been in the ‘Web 2.0′ incarnation of the Internet, that VLE/CMC has been able to become a mature learning tool. Perhaps this is due more to the developments of the GUI interface – rather than the fundamental principles of CMC, which have largely remained constant.

Activity 1.4 (direct text quotation)

Having made some notes on the paper, I have re-read and picked out some key points (as I see them), which are taken directly from the text for my own note taking purposes – these are not intended to be submitted as my own work.

‘The Virtual Classroom is a system for learning and communicating via connected computers. Students in the Virtual Classroom share their thoughts, questions, and reactions with professors and classmates, using computers equipped with specially designed software. The software enables students to send and receive messages, to interact with professors and classmates, to read and comment on lecture material, to take tests, and to receive feedback without having to attend scheduled classes. Learning can take place at any location and at any time by using a computer on campus, at home or in the workplace’.

Background: The primary goal of the project was to test whether it is possible to use a computer-mediated communication system to improve access to and effectiveness of post-secondary educational delivery. The most important product of the project is knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of this new technology, as they may be influenced by variations in students’ characteristics and in implementation techniques and settings.

Method: In order to explore our key research questions, we found it necessary to observe various types of courses, students, and implementation environments.

Key questions: The two key questions are as follows: Is the Virtual Classroom a viable option for educational delivery? (On the whole, are outcomes at least as good as those for traditional face-to-face courses?); What variables are associated with especially good and especially poor outcomes in this new teaching and learning environment?

Data collection: Data collection rested primarily on pre- and post-course questionnaires administered to students, but also included more objective behavioural data (including grades, SAT scores, and records of the amount of on-line activity) and qualitative data (participant observation in class conferences, personal interviews with students, and case reports by instructors)

Hypotheses: H1: There will be no significant differences in scores measuring mastery of material taught in the virtual and the traditional classrooms. H2: VC students will perceive a VC to be superior to the TC on a number of dimensions. 2.1 Convenient access to educational experiences 2.2 Improved access to their professor 2.3 Increased participation in a course 2.4 Increased level of interest in the subject matter, which may continue beyond the end of the course 2.5 Improved ability to communicate and cooperate with other students in doing classwork (group collaboration skills) 2.6 Improved overall quality, whereby the student assesses the experience as being better than the TC in some way, involving learning more on the whole or gaining more from the course.

Learning tools: Students who take courses in a Virtual Classroom are expected to learn the course in a variety of ways. Many of the concepts and skills should be learned independently through reading texts or assigned articles, watching videotapes, and/or using other computer tools such as computer assisted learning software on PC.
The Virtual Classroom also offers some special opportunities. 1. Interaction and feedback may occur daily rather than being available only during a few scheduled hours during the week. 2. Pen names may be used in contributing responses to questions or assignments, thus enabling the student to share ideas and experiences without becoming embarrassed or revealing confidences. 3. Students may be forced to think and respond independently rather than listening passively to the instructor or other students. In one variety of the response branch, activity designed for this project, each student must answer a question before being allowed to see the other students’ answers. 4. Putting questions and answers into a written form may aid comprehension and/or retention for some students. It may also improve their writing skills.

Concept: Knowledge is not delivered to students; instead it emerges from active dialogue among those who seek to understand and apply concepts techniques (Bouton and Garth 1983; Whipple 1987).

Interactions: Techniques based on stimulating participation – very difficult in traditional classroom. Materials are written and searchable -communication is asynchronous – students deal actively at their own pace. “The electronic medium opens new educational options for both learners and teachers, not only in expanding educational access, but also in redesigning teaching strategies and learning activities.” The most basic redesign is to ask questions and stimulate student activities to fond and share answers, rather than giving all the answers. Though students may derive some benefit from simply reading materials on line, conferencing as a mode of course delivery can fulfill its potential only if students contribute actively to a group learning experience.
Cognitively immature students – discover – “There are many different and equally good answers, including mine.” Faculty members lead students toward critical involvement. Wide variation in perceptions of characteristics of the Virtual Classroom, both among courses and among students in the same course. Students feel more at ease than in the traditional classroom. All capital letters were common, students whose tying skills were generally poor found it easier to use CAPSLOCK than to operate the shift key to produce mixed upper- and lower-case letters.
The excerpts also demonstrate the students’ tendency to put off assignments and other forms of on-line participation. the first assignment was due by midnight on a Tuesday; several of the entries were made after dinner on that evening.
It was common practice for two or three students in an on-line course to develop a ‘buddy system’; they sat next to each other , talked over the material that was coming across the screen and helped each other with the mechanics of using the system.

Results: Results of this field trial are generally very positive’: they support the conclusion that the Virtual Classroom mode of delivery can increase access to and effectiveness of college-level education. Total study – over 200 variables and over 50 hypotheses.

Objective outcomes: mastery of subject matter: There were no significant differences in midterm or final examination scores in any courses. When we took into account the quality of graded assignments as well as the midterm and final examinations in computing the course average, introductory computer science students did significantly better in the Virtual Classroom than in the traditional classroom. There were no significant differences in grades for other courses.

Subjective Assessments: Hypotheses related to characteristics of the Virtual Classroom as compared to the traditional classroom were explored mainly on the basis of student self-reports. 2.1 Convenient access to educational experiences (supported) 2.2 Improved access to professor (supported) 2.3 Increased participation in a course (supported) 2.4 increased level of interest in the subject matter, which may continue beyond the end of the course.

Teaching Sociology in a virtual classroom: Examples of some of the statistical and interview-based data that support these conclusions. the majority of students (65%) felt that taking on-lone courses was more convenient. Even those who generally preferred traditional courses tended to comment on the advantages of being able to work on the course at times of their own choosing. Those with computers and modems at home were most likely to appreciate the convenience. – Own pace – freedom – flexible. Procrastinating is a problem in this mode of learning. About half the students admitted that when they became busy with other things, they were more likely to stop participating in an on-line course than to cut a traditional class. Many students do not have self discipline.
Some students participated almost every day, but others only when something was due.

Increased Interaction: opinion was mixed about whether the Virtual Classroom led to more communication. Those who were most enthusiastic about the medium tended to value other students’ contributions and comments highly, and enjoyed them.

Discussion and observations: …It was not surprising that despite some favourable outcomes for the totally Virtual Classroom offering Introductory Sociology, we decided not to repeat the experiment with that course. Students lacking teh necessary basic skills and self-discipline tend to do better in a traditionally delivered course.

Conclusion: The Virtual Classroom is a promising and viable option for post-secondary educational delivery, and may be particularly attractive for upper-level sociology courses. Average outcomes at least as good as for traditional face-to-face courses. Convenience of access may be improved. Average student in this experiment reported access and quality of the educational experience was better than those in the traditional classroom. Outcomes, are contingent on adequate access to equipment, faculty effort, skill in teaching with this new tool, students’ characteristics and a good match between course objectives. Students who are motivated and self-disciplined and who have average or better quantitative and verbal skills are likely to experience superior outcomes.

———-

Reference

Hiltz, S.R. and Meinke, R. (1989) ‘Teaching sociology in a virtual classroom’, Teaching Sociology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 431-46.

Activity 1.4: Reading the Paper (1)

Questions: What research questions are being addressed?
Is the Virtual Classroom a viable option for educational delivery? (On the whole, are outcomes at least as good a those for traditional face-to-face courses?) What variables are associated with especially good and especially poor outcomes in this new teaching and learning environment?

Setting: What is the sector and setting? (e.g. school, HE, training, informal learning)
The setting is the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) and Upsala College – where both authors are employed. They have created a ‘virtual classroom’ as part of a two year funded project. The observations are across a variety of course within the same faculty, with a similar students base and implemented environments. “The primary research design rested on matched but ‘non equivalent’ sections of the same course taught in the Virtual Classroom (VC) and the traditional classroom (TC).”

Concepts: What theories, concepts and key terms are being used?
One of the quoted concepts is ‘Knowledge is not delivered to students; instead it emerges from active dialogue among those who seek to understand and apply concepts techniques’ (Bouton and Garth 1983; Whipple 1987).

There are two main hypotheses within the paper, stating that ‘there will be no significant differences in scores measuring mastery of material taught in the virtual and traditional classrooms.’ And that ‘Virtual Classroom (VC) students will perceive the VC to be superior to the Traditional Classroom (TC) on a number of dimensions: Convenient access to educational experiences. Improved access to their professor. Increased participation in a course. Increased level of interest in the subject matter, which may continue beyond the end of the course. Improved ability to communicate and cooperate with other students in doing classwork (group collaboration skills). Improved overall quality, whereby the student assess the experience as being better than the TC in some way, involving learning more on the whole or gaining more from the course.’

Methods: What methods of data collection and analysis are used? (e.g. the number of participants; the type of technologies; the use of interviews, surveys, observations, etc.)
The study covered a number of courses across two different educational establishments with a very distinctly different student type. There were two obvious time-lines to the study – The initial trial groups – ‘several’ mixed-mode courses… In total 107 students in six sections, 1986/87 – and the follow-up, with 96 students across six-mode courses, 1987/8. The five matched courses (87/88) included Introductory Sociology at Upsala College. The two colleges provided very different implementation environments. Upsala is a small ‘liberal’ arts college with only one computer lab (not uncommon for the time). Conversely, NJIT is a large technological university where students have been issued with IBM-PCs for use in their studies. Data collection – pre-and post-course questionnaires were issued, also objective behavioural data (grades, SAT scores and records of on-line activity). There was also some qualitative data collection (participant observation in class conferences, personal interviews and case reports).

Findings: What did this research find out?
Overall the results of the trial were ‘generally positive’, and they support the hypotheses. The full study had over 200 variables and over 50 hypotheses. The findings / outcomes are listed as:
OBJECTIVE OUTCOMES: MASTERY OF SUBJECT MATTER
It was found that there were no significant differences in midterm or final examination scores across any course. When the quality of graded assignments as well as the midterm and final examinations were taken into account – the computer science students did significantly better in the Virtual Classroom that in the traditional classroom – however, there were no significant differences in grades for other courses.
SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS
The hypotheses related to characteristics of the Virtual Classroom as compared to he traditional classroom were explored mainly on the basis of student self-reports.

Limitations: What are the limitations of the methods used?
In any empirical research there are bound to be limitations. in this case, one overarching limitation has to be the ‘quality’ of the technology. In 1986-88, computer systems were primitive in comparison to today, there was little proliferation outside of education, defence and some businesses – therefore little chance of user experience. Technical support and tutor support would also be very limited by lack of experience with this new technology. Differences in learning capabilities and ‘brain power’ would also be difficult to quantify. Would students perform differently if swapped over on to VC part way through the course?

Ethics: Are there any ethical issues associated with the research?
There are some ethical questions relating to this work… perhaps the main concern is that of grading the students. As the students were using new technologies, as perhaps were the professors – what was the guarantee of quality? What could be done if a student

Implications: What are the implications (if any) for practice, policy or further research?
The implication was that no further research could be carried out on some of the subject areas – at the most basic level on the sociology course at Upsala.

———-

Reference

Hiltz, S.R. and Meinke, R. (1989) ‘Teaching sociology in a virtual classroom’, Teaching Sociology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 431-46.

Paper 1

Teaching Sociology in a Virtual Classroom
Starr Roxanne Hiltz; Robert Meinke
Teaching Sociology, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Oct 1989), pp. 431-446.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-055X%28198910%2917%3A4%3C431%3ATSIAVC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

—————–

‘A “Virtual Classroom” is a teaching and learning environment located within a computer-mediated communication system. Software tools to enhance teaching and learning activities were added to the standard features of a computerised conferencing system to produce a prototype Virtual Classroom. A variety of courses was offered, some totally on-line with matched face-to-face sections, and others in mixed mode, partially on-line and partially in the traditional (physical) classroom. Overall, outcomes were favourable: students reported increased convenience of access to educational activities and improved quality of learning. Outcomes varied greatly, however. In this paper we describe and contrast experiences in teaching a totally on-line version of introductory sociology and mixed-modes sections of two upper-level sociology courses.’

———–

The paper references the following linked citations:

A PSI Statistics Course
Michael A. Malec
Teaching Sociology, vol. 10, no. 1 (Oct. 1982), pp.84-87.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-055X%2819810%2910%3A1%3C84%3AAPSC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

Group Incentive Techniques
Donald E. Tarter
Teaching Sociology, vol. 10, no.1 (Oct. 1982), pp. 117-121
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-055X%28198210%2910%3A1%3C117%3AGIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

—————–

Notes for Activity 1.4

I am continuing on with writing-up my first draft notes on the ‘Hiltz and Meinke’ (1989) paper. As I’ve been reviewing the paper and my initial margin notes, I’ve been trying to put it all into context.

I remember back to what I was doing in IT in 1988/89, in secondary education in the UK. Obviously I can’t speak for every secondary school, but we were just about to network BBC Masters. I think ‘IT’ had only just been add into the National Curriculum and EVERYTHING was new and pretty basic.

I know there will have been cutting edge establishments running better equipment and pushing the boundaries. It is interesting to read this paper, contrasting what was being developed in the USA in 1986-88; which is only now really beginning to be rolled-out in the UK… one of the biggest growth areas in the past 2-3 years has been the introduction and development of VLEs in colleges and secondary education.

I think it would be interesting to try and find some papers and empirical studies on CMC/VLEs in the UK to see where they fit on the time-line in comparison to research carried out in the USA.

Anyway back to my notes… I’ve pretty much finished typing them up and will post them (definitely) tomorrow (is there actually a ‘deadline’ for the Activities? week by week, or just to be completed within the group at whatever pace is set by the group?)