Developing Innovation in Online Learning: An Action Research Framework (Open and Flexible Learning Series)

Developing Innovation in Online Learning Action research has become a valued research and educational development techn...

Author: Miguel Ba Nunes

62 downloads 1240 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Developing Innovation in Online Learning Action research has become a valued research and educational development technique – an innovative approach through which a group of participants engage in self-reflection to improve practice. Developing Innovation in Online Learning introduces action research as a method of developing e-learning modules and courses. The book covers both the theory and practice of applying action research principles to develop online learning.The material is grounded in the experiences of practitioners and features practical advice, case studies, models for implementation, a design framework and e-tutoring strategies. The four ‘building blocks’ of e-learning covered include: ● ● ● ●

the organisational context the pedagogic model the educational setting the evaluation process.

This book will be an essential resource for education managers, course developers and educational researchers. Maggie McPherson is Programme Coordinator of the distance education programme MA in IT Management in the Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Dr Miguel Baptista Nunes is Lecturer in Information Management at the same department. Both have published widely in the field.

Developing Innovation in Online Learning: An Action Research Framework Maggie McPherson and Miguel Baptista Nunes

First published 2004 by RoutledgeFalmer 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by RoutledgeFalmer 29 West 35th Street, New York NY 10001 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004.

RoutledgeFalmer is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group © 2004 Maggie McPherson and Miguel Baptista Nunes All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data McPherson, Maggie. Developing innovation in online learning: an action research framework / Maggie McPherson and Miguel Baptista Nunes. p. cm. –– (Open and flexible learning series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-415-33514-0 (hardcover) –– ISBN 0-415-33513-2 (paperback) 1. Computer-assisted instruction. 2. Internet in education. 3. Action series in education. I. Nunes, Miguel Baptista. II.Title. III. Series. LB1028.5.M364 2004 371.33'4––dc22 2003021041 ISBN 0-203-42671-1 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-43867-1 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-33514-0 (hb) ISBN 0-415-33513-2 (pb)

Contents List of illustrations Series editor’s foreword Acknowledgements Glossary of acronyms

vi viii x xi

1.

Action research in online learning

2.

An action research framework for online learning

13

3.

Pedagogical models

36

4.

Design and development of online learning environments

54

5.

Tutoring and delivering online learning

77

6.

Evaluation

100

7.

Action research and future practice

123

Bibliography Appendix: NICLS module outline Index

1

128 142 145

v

List of illustrations

Figures 1.1

1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

2.5 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3

vi

Action research purpose: understanding the perspectives of others as the basis for action (Stringer, 1999) Spiral of action research cycles (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001:19) The Lewinian action research model as described by Kolb (1984) Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb, 1984:42) The Experiential Learning Cycle adopted from Pfeiffer and Ballew (1988a) An online learning framework presented at workshops in ICALT and ICCE 2002 and adapted from Al Rawas (2001) The Educational Management Action Research (EMAR) model CPDE pedagogical model General Educational Systems Design (ESD) adapted from Nunes (1999) and Nunes and McPherson (2003) General prototyping cycle MA in ITM initial implementation model

9

10 14 15 16 23

28 53 63 65 70

List of illustrations vii

4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2

Year 2 Project Management (Y2PM) module home page Y2PM module: the Administration Area Y2PM module: the Course Notes and Materials Area Y2PM module: the Day School Area Y2PM module: the Resources and Links Area Examples of the NICLS WebCT environment Virtual social space (VSS) architecture for the MA in ITM The VSS home page The Work Zone MA in ITM revised implementation model Example of WebCT student tracking usage Example of useful module feedback

71 72 73 74 75 92 95 96 97 98 112 113

Tables 6.1 6.2

Survey respondents: student distribution by age Survey respondents: student distribution by year of study

116 117

Series editor’s foreword The timing of the publication of this book Developing Innovation in Online Learning: An Action Research Framework by Maggie McPherson and Miguel Baptista Nunes is fortuitous. It is fortuitous because in July 2003 the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) of the UK Government published a consultation document Towards a Unified e-Learning Strategy [http://www.dfes.gov.uk/elearningstrategy], a strategy intended to span all educational provision – from primary schools to universities. The emphasis within the consultation document is upon meeting learner expectations and empowering them so they can exploit the potential of these new technologies. It notes the importance of student-centred learning, of the provision of self-paced individualised learning and interactive materials, of personalised online support and guidance with learners taking increasing responsibility for their own learning. It is characterised by a call to change and improve our educational practices by embedding new technologies and approaches into our schools, colleges and universities. I suspect it is similar to whatever government or institutional strategy you have in place. In the UK the consultation period ended in January 2004 and no doubt there will be both revisions and additions to this strategy before it is implemented. However, what is not in doubt is that teachers and trainers, managers and administrators, researchers and employers will need to be involved in the process of reviewing and implementing the ideas in the proposed e-learning strategy. This book, Developing Innovation in Online Learning: An Action Research Framework, will be invaluable in this task since it reflects many, if not all, of the aspirations within the consultation document and those strategies I have seen elsewhere. It offers no simple recipes, templates or quick fixes.What it does offer is a sound discussion of the theoretical models and frameworks that will inform the debate, a description viii

Series editor’s foreword

ix

of the authors’ Educational Management Action Research (EMAR) model that can aid the implementation of online learning and an illustrative case study of its application, within an action research framework, which runs throughout the book. If you are faced with the challenge of teaching online, of assembling course materials and evaluating their success, the ideas and examples in this book will help you, your colleagues and your learners. Fred Lockwood Manchester, January 2004

Acknowledgements The research process that resulted in this book has been an intellectual and philosophical journey for us. Intellectually, this journey allowed us to develop both as educational informatics practitioners and as action researchers. Philosophically, we had to find a path that would lead us to apply current learning theories and epistemologies to the design of educational online learning systems. Behind every significant journey there is always a large group of involved and supporting people, who give advice, warn of dangers, point to fruitful avenues and offer physical and emotional sustenance. First, we would like to thank our families and friends for their support and understanding, especially our partners, who tolerated our long preoccupation with this project and have always been by our side. Second, we are grateful to the MA in ITM team for their efforts not only in supporting the students, but also for embarking on this journey of transformation with us. We are particularly indebted to Joan Keogh and Dr Bill Taylor who have been part of the course team since the beginning of the programme.

x

Glossary of acronyms ASSURE CAI CAL CBI CDM CMC COMETT CPD CTGV DE DIS EdT EMAR ESD f2f FAQ FE HE HTML HW ICT ID IM IS

analyse, state, select, utilise, require and evaluate computer-assisted instruction computer-assisted learning computer-based instruction CAI design model computer-mediated communication Community Action Programme in Education and Training for Technology continuing professional development Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (University) distance education Department of Information Studies educational technology Educational Management Action Research educational systems design face-to-face frequently asked questions further education higher education HyperText Markup Language hardware information and communication technology instructional design information management information systems xi

xii Developing innovation in online learning

ISD IT ITM KADS KBS LLL MBA MS NICLS ODL OLS OMG OTA PC PDF PM QAA REAL SDM SET SSADM SW UfL UML VLE VR VSS WebCT WiTEC WWW Y2PM

instructional systems design information technology information technology management knowledge analysis and design system knowledge-based systems life-long learning Master of Business Administration Microsoft networked information and communication literacy skills open and distance learning online learning support object management group Office of Technology Assessment personal computer portable document format project management Quality Assurance Agency rich environment for active learning structured development methodology science, engineering and technology structured system analysis and design methodology software University for Industry unified modelling language virtual learning environment virtual reality virtual social space web course space Women in Science, Engineering and Technology in European Countries World Wide Web Year 2 Project Management

Chapter 1

Action research in online learning This book explores action research as an approach to support innovative thinking and investigation into online learning and to propose a specific educational informatics framework for this type of inquiry. The framework proposed is grounded on the practitioner and is based on four basic building blocks: the organisational context, the pedagogic model, the educational setting and the evaluation process. In this context, action research is proposed as a pluralist research approach for educationalists, grounded on practitioner reflection as the guide for innovation in everyday professional life. In this book, we aim to address the lack of action research frameworks or models that can be specifically applied to online learning.We will present, discuss and explore each of the four building blocks mentioned above and will propose methods and tools to support practitioners and researchers in the development of online learning. To this end, we intend to take the reader on a journey through both theory and practice. Thus, each chapter will begin with an academic discussion, which is intended to explain relevant theoretical thinking and to help the reader to develop an understanding of the underlying concepts. Subsequently, to provide evidence of good practice and to illustrate the theoretical discussion, we will go on to include references to a longitudinal case study at the end of each chapter.Thus, we hope this book will appeal to all those – both scholars and practitioners alike – wishing to develop an understanding of action research in educational contexts.

1

2 Developing innovation in online learning

Background Changing circumstances within the world at large and the increasing accessibility of technological solutions are driving those of us who work in further education (FE) and higher education (HE) institutions to develop innovative learning strategies and solutions. This is necessary in order to respond to escalating demands from both society and industry (Nunes et al., 2000a). Through the adoption of flexible online learning environments, educationalists are now able to reach increasing numbers of students in traditional HE, FE, distance education (DE) and continuing professional development (CPD) (Berge and Collins, 1995a; SKIP, 1998). Both internal and external pressures are driving this change process and some studies (Nabi and Bagley, 1999; Lange et al. 2000) have confirmed that current graduates of our education systems are not necessarily meeting employers’ expectations. In fact, many graduates are not being equipped with all the skills that they require to be competitive in their professional careers. Increasingly, industrial and commercial employers are requesting more flexible and self-confident professionals with skills such as communication, problem analysis, problem solving, planning and networking (Kakabadse and Korac-Kakabadse, 2000). The need to meet this call for higher levels of innovation in skills and knowledge is continuously raising the demand for new methods and forms of learning and delivery of educational content, especially for permanent professional re-qualification.Thus, the necessity for life-long learning (LLL) is becoming apparent at all levels of society (McPherson, 2003b). Although almost a decade has passed since the ‘Year of Life-long Learning’ was declared in Europe in 1995, educational institutions and individual academics and teachers are only now beginning to recognise the urgent need to address this problem. Consequently, the role of HE is becoming much wider and more complex. Educationalists need not only to disseminate subject-specific knowledge, but also to develop students’ capabilities to apply their skills in the context of the chosen field or industry sector (Nunes and McPherson, 2002a).This has necessitated the rethinking and redefining of academic learning, which is not a trivial matter (Hall and Nunes, 2002).

Understanding academic learning In general terms, academic learning can be seen as a series of activities that promote acquisition of high-level knowledge (Nunes and Fowell, 1996a). However, and as firmly pointed out by the industrial world, the acquisition of inert and abstract concepts is futile if the learner lacks the understanding needed to apply them in appropriate settings. For example, students are too often required to assimilate definitions, algorithms and routines devoid of context.This view is supported by Laurillard (1993), who suggests that academic learning must:

Action research in online learning 3 ● ●

be situated in the domain of the objective – the activities must match that domain; contain both direct experience of the world and the reflection on that experience that will produce the intended way of representing it.

This view of learning implies that we should be rejecting the classical tradition of transferring a fixed body of knowledge to the learner, in the form of unchangeable and authoritarian concepts or definitions. This approach is still common in some sectors of HE, and in these settings, many educationalists assume that these concepts are external to the learner and can be transmitted to and received by him or her through a process of communication.This type of teaching and learning has been translated by HE institutions into what we term ‘lectures’.This classic configuration, which still prevails today, consists of an academic addressing a passive classroom of learners following the well-known ‘sage on the stage’ paradigm. Such a process focuses on learner behaviour and its modifications, rather than on cognitive or mental processes that facilitate learning (e.g. constructing, reflecting or planning). It is known as an objectivist theory of learning and represents a strongly individualistic concept of learning, in the sense that individual behaviour is modified due to presentation of stimuli from the learning environment. Jones and Mercer (1993) argue that objectivism embodies a model of the learner as a solitary striver for understanding, and Laurillard (1993) describes the acquisition of knowledge as an abstract Platonic form. Nevertheless, educationalists have long since recognised that academic learning should be much more than the passive reception and acquisition of knowledge.The way learners handle knowledge is what really concerns academics (Laurillard, 1993). Knowledge has a contextualised character, which means that it cannot be separated from the situations in which it is used.When learning occurs in isolation it remains inert, that is, the learner has the information available in memory, but never recognises when it is relevant (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University, 1991).Acquisition of concepts is of no use if the learner cannot apply those concepts and transfer his or her knowledge across different settings.Thus, academic learning involves the attainment of high-level skills of critical thinking and problem solving in addition to the gathering of facts and concepts.This broader view is not a new concept and implies that learning should be a continuous process of reflective experience in which a person actively constructs a view of the world. Nevertheless, HE lecturers and academics are constrained by a number of practical limitations that are intrinsic to the educational system we have inherited. Academic life is divided into academic years and semesters; courses are divided into modules, modules into units, and units into learning activities. Modern education still aims at uniformity of standards and curricula. Educationalists have to operate within these constraints, while coping with increasing numbers of students in classes and administrative processes of assessment and student progress monitoring and complying with institutional and national policies.What is more, academics need to foster their professional careers in institutions that increasingly devote a disproportionate weight to research in comparison to teaching.


Finally, in the UK to date – and in great contrast with what happens in secondary education – it has not been unusual for lecturers within FE and HE to have no formal training in teaching and learning, although steps are being taken to address this situation. Therefore, it is not surprising that teaching and learning methods at universities are still predominantly based on a lecturing approach However, significant change has taken place under the combined pressure from the industrial and commercial environments and the advent of information and communication technology (ICT), resulting in what is generally referred to as online learning. It is apparent from the pace of change now occurring within both FE and HE that we will be seeing an exponential acceleration in adoption of online learning (Hall and Nunes, 2002). Without a doubt, one of the most common ICT tools being adopted is the World Wide Web (WWW, and from here referred to as the ‘web’). In fact, Ausserhofer (1999) described this technology as the most recent educational panacea being used to try and provide students with transferable skills, namely online communication, online discussion and negotiation of meanings (Bowskill, 1998). However, merely introducing a new technological solution will not guarantee that educationalists can foster and promote transferable skills or that students will acquire the expertise required by society. Moreover, it certainly cannot be regarded as a guarantee for ensuring the use of the emergent educational approaches and epistemologies referred to earlier. Technology in itself does not change or improve teaching and learning. Attention to management processes, strategy, structure, and most importantly roles and skills, are the key to successfully introducing technology in university teaching and learning. (Wills and Alexander, 2000) Therefore, according to Fox and Herrman (2000), we cannot hope to apply a simple template or checklist to predict and resolve the complex interactive processes involved in this type of change process. Consequently, it could be argued that a new research discipline is required, based on practical, empirical and research evidence. This new discipline aims ‘to provide opportunities to investigate perspectives and rehearse and test responses to them, thus reducing misunderstandings, friction and conflict within team environments’ (Fox and Herrman, 2000).

Educational informatics Informatics is a term used to represent a field of research focusing on the relationship between information and communication technologies applied to a specific context. Thus, this term has been commonly associated with the convergence of ICT and a number of other fields and disciplines.

Action research in online learning 5

However, the term also has associations within an already established field of research. In fact, and as discussed by Levy et al. (2003), within computer science it is commonly used to refer to topics related to the representation, processing and communication of information within computational systems. The concerns of computer science include non-semantic aspects of information, for example, the material characteristics and behaviour of bit streams. Conversely, according to Kling and Allen (1996) organisational informatics encompasses the application of information, information systems and ICT with organisations. On the other hand, within information science, informatics is always concerned with the semantics of digital information use and communication (that is, with information content and context) and with digital interactions between multiple information sources, whether these be human or in recorded form (Levy et al. 2003). Domain-specific areas include health informatics, chemo-informatics, business informatics and social informatics. In confirmation of this Beynon-Davies (2002) defines informatics as follows: Informatics is the study of information, information systems and information technology applied to various phenomena. […] The term has also been extremely popular within the health and biological sciences fields, as is evident in the common use of such terms as health informatics, medical informatics and bio-informatics. Beynon-Davies (2002:3) Kling and Hara (2002) support this conceptualisation of informatics and state that research in these areas tends to be defined as the study of the application of ICTs and information management (IM) techniques to the domain in question. Nevertheless, these authors suggest that definitions of informatics research that are solely ‘applications focused’ fail to draw sufficient attention to the need to understand human activity systems and the complexities of the social systems they form. Therefore, it is the design of the ICT environments and the consequence of its application that constitutes the real focus of informatics research in an appropriate and specific context. Research into the educational possibilities and impact of ICTs is by no means a new phenomenon and has been at the forefront of educationalists’ concerns since the early 1980s. However, educational informatics as a research field is still an emergent domain, although given a recent impetus by developments in the use of the web as both an information environment and an environment for learning. Levy et al. (2003) defined educational informatics as: The study of the application of digital technologies and techniques to the use and communication of information in learning and education.The overarching purpose is to develop and evaluate concepts, models, theories, techniques and methodologies – including research techniques and methodologies – that are of relevance to the use of ICTs for the purposes of learning, teaching and


supporting learning in diverse settings. The main concerns of this area of inquiry are essentially twofold, and relate closely to each other. Levy et al. (2003) This represents a broader view of educational informatics than the one proposed by Berge and Collins (1995a), Santoro (1995) and Salmon (2000). Educational informatics is much more than the study of ‘repositories and maintenance of organised information’ and also includes the design, development and implementation of educational systems as well as the provision and use of the conferencing facilities offered by those online learning environments. As proposed by Levy et al. (2003), research in educational informatics seeks to understand the effects on people of using digital information resources, services, systems, environments and communication facilities for learning and education, by examining the issues and problems that arise from their practice and how these relate to factors such as educational and professional context, communication and information practices, pedagogical theories, psychological and cognitive variables, and ICT design and use. Moreover, Levy et al. (2003) maintain that educational informatics seeks to contribute to the development of practical knowledge that is of relevance to diverse forms of ICT-supported learning. This includes knowledge about appropriate pedagogies, ICT and information management (IM) strategies, management approaches and instructional materials, and systems and environments, for example by designing, implementing, using and evaluating the outcomes of ICT-enabled educational interventions. Consequently, educational informatics is located at the intersection of three broad disciplines: information science, education and computer science. Each of these encompasses a range of sub-disciplines and domains, including information systems, information management, information literacy, educational psychology, learning technology, computer supported collaborative learning and instructional design. Research in educational informatics may draw on all of these disciplines and areas, and also on theory and empirical research from other informatics domains such as social and organisational informatics (Sawyer and Eschenfelder, 2002) and, in common with other informatics research, it is unequivocally concerned with ICT. Studies that investigate information issues in educational settings without explicitly addressing the role of ICTs may be of relevance to educational informatics researchers, but such work would not itself be included within the educational informatics domain (Levy et al. 2003). Finally, and in common with all other informatics fields, educational informatics deals with complex social systems that cannot be simplistically reduced for meaningful study. Educational informatics researchers believe that educational settings, as the context of study and interaction with information technologies, can only be understood as a whole entity. A key implication of this assumption is that the factoring of a social setting, such as a learning environment and its information technology components, into variables or isolated sub-systems, will not lead to useful knowledge and understanding about the whole setting (Baskerville, 1999).


Gill and Johnson (1997) propose that the most suitable approach for studies undertaken in the context of complex social systems is a ‘methodological pluralism’ and quote a variety of researchers such as Kuhn (1970), Giddens (1984), Johnson (1995) and Eilon (1974) in support of this view.This is particularly relevant to educational informatics since the emphasis of this particular research is to concentrate on learning issues and the complex social interactions it encompasses. Therefore, it is suggested that a purely positivist approach would be inappropriate and that a qualitative approach would be more suitable, as suggested by Reeves (2002): Academic research models are still dominated by positivist epistemology that regards theory above and apart from practice. The overall goal of research within the prevailing positivist tradition is to develop long-lasting theories and empirical principles that can be handed off to practitioners for implementation. While this experimental approach may work in fields such as chemistry and biology it has not been very successful in the social sciences, including education. (Reeves, 2002) Reeves (2002) goes on to propose that fields such as educational informatics require a pragmatic research epistemology that regards theory as being collaboratively shaped by researchers and practitioners.Thus, educational research must be seen as development research with the goal of solving real problems while at the same time constructing design principles that can inform practice.This epistemology requires a disciplined inquiry, in which a personal attempt is made to understand, improve and reform practice.This conforms to Ebbutt’s (1985) definition of action research. Action research is highly appropriate to the development of online learning, where experience suggests that significant modifications are required to the traditional paradigm of the delivery in HE (HEFCE, 2000).These changes imply not only alterations in course models, but also development of new attitudes, in order to accommodate the new challenges posed by online learning environments and interactions.

Action research Action research is a flexible, situationally responsive methodology that offers rigour, authenticity and voice to educationalists, practitioners and students (Cohen et al. 2000). Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) offer a broad and all-encompassing definition: Action research is a form of collective, self-reflective inquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice


of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out. (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988:5) Therefore; action research represents a different approach to research, i.e. a pluralist research approach that is based on the assumption that when studying complex social settings, the mere recording of events and formulation of explanations by an uninvolved researcher, typical of positivism, is inadequate in and of itself. Furthermore, Stringer (1999) proposes that those who have previously been designated as ‘subjects’ should actually participate directly in research processes and that those processes should be applied in ways that benefit all participants directly. In support of this idea, Levin and Greenwood (2001) argue that knowledge construction processes should involve both researchers and learners in the same ‘learning-action process’, thereby both fulfilling a participative democratic ideal and achieving knowledge generation through learning from action. Action research focuses on solving context-bound real-life problems. Knowledge production cannot be done without taking into account the wholeness of a situation. Inquiry is based on questions emerging from real life situations as opposed to the conventional academic way of working where questions arise from within the academic community which is divided into professional fiefdoms. Levin and Greenwood (2001) Therefore, action research is more than the traditional interpretative research in the sense that the researcher is directly involved in the research setting and in the experience itself and has direct impact on the events being studied.The usefulness of action research lies in empirical and research evidence, which can support educationalists to better understand and learn from their own practice through the investigation of different perspectives and rehearsal and test of responses to them. Thus, action research provides the ideal approach to reduce the problems inherent to preconceived conceptualisations of learning needs and strategies and the consequent confusion, friction and even conflict in learning settings. However, as discussed by Cohen et al. (2000), daily activities of educationalists and tutors do not necessarily constitute action research per se, and they quote Kemmis and McTaggart (1992) who distinguish research from everyday actions: ●

●

It is not the usual thinking teachers do when they think about their teaching.Action research is more systematic and collaborative in collecting evidence on which to base rigorous group reflection. It is not simply problem-solving. Action research involves problem-posing, not just problem-solving. It does not start from a view of ‘problems’


●

●

as pathologies. It is motivated by a quest to improve and understand the world by changing it and learning how to improve it from the effects of the changes made. It is not research done on other people. Action is research by particular people on their own work, to help them improve what they do, including how they work with and for others […] Action research is not ‘the scientific method’ applied to teaching.There is not just one view of ‘the scientific method’, there are many. (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1992:21–2)

At the core of educational action research is the collection of feedback from educationalists, tutors, learners and even administrators prior to, during and after learning activities, so as to adapt solutions to specific teaching and learning needs. Therefore, the aim is to change and improve educational practice through participative research. This can only be achieved by a systematic process in which educationalists act deliberately on the basis of self-criticism and analysis of recordings, reflections and feedback from all stakeholders in the learning activities, theorising about practice and finally developing solutions, strategies and new questions, questions which in turn need to be tested through renewed action as proposed by Stringer (1999) and shown in Figure 1.1. However, the diagram in Figure 1.1 fails to address one of the most fundamental aspects of action research. As put forward by Coghlan and Brannick (2001), in order for action research to be effective as a research methodology, it must consist of a series of spiral research cycles, starting with a process of identifying a problem area – a pre-step often based on the researcher’s previous experience in the field. The actual cycle comprises Diagnosis (data gathering, analysis and representation), Action Planning, Action Taking, and Action Evaluation as shown in Figure 1.2.

Action Research Interpretative Research

Experience Perceptions Interpretations

Data Gathering

Analysis

Representation

Action

Select key

Written accounts

Procedures

Capture the

features

and abstract

Projects

experience

and

representations

Services

of others

categorise

Programs Policies/Plans

Figure 1.1 Action research purpose: understanding the perspectives of others as the basis for action (Stringer, 1999)


Diagnosing

Diagnosing

Diagnosing

Evaluating action

Evaluating action Planning action

Evaluating action Planning action Taking action

Planning action Taking action

Cycle 3 Taking action

Cycle 2

Cycle 1

Figure 1.2 Spiral of action research cycles (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001:19)

It is therefore not surprising that advocates of action research, such as Eden and Huxham (1996), believe that this approach provides an ideal research methodology for the study of educational informatics because it involves a close ‘collaboration between practitioners and researchers over a matter that is of genuine concern to them’, i.e. online learning and teaching. This type of research embodies the principles of pragmatism applied to research by providing an approach for knowledge creation, reflection, understanding and application in action. Therefore, action research may well be an ideal vehicle for practitioneroriented innovative thinking in the context of online learning, by allowing the design and development of new learning and teaching approaches using ICT and enabling the feedback and participation of both tutors and learners. Nevertheless, while there are examples of successful deployment of action research in academic environments, these are rare, being difficult to create and hard to sustain (Levin and Greenwood, 2001).This is probably due to the lack of a specific framework to support the change process within higher educational environments, since traditional action research only provides us with generic constructs such as the ones presented by Coghlan and Brannick (2001) and Stringer (1999).

Scope of this book In this chapter, we have presented the background to the use of action research as an approach to investigate issues in educational informatics, and we will now describe what will be covered in the following chapters.


Chapter 2 proposes the Educational Management Action Research (EMAR) model as an educational informatics action research framework, which is rooted in a practitioner action research approach as discussed above. The EMAR model is based on four basic building blocks, which will be presented and discussed, i.e. the organisational context, the pedagogic model, the educational setting and the evaluation process. Chapter 3 discusses appropriate pedagogical models for online learning stemming from demands of both industry and society. As discussed previously, FE and HE need to prepare graduates with transferable skills such as problem solving, critical thinking and communication.These skills are to be used in the context of the specific domain of their studies. Therefore, knowledge cannot be separated from the real world and learning should be an active and collaborative process where meanings must be socially negotiated through authentic learning activities. Therefore, this chapter proposes a pedagogical model for online learning based on a moderate constructivist philosophy, underpinned by the triangle of learner, peers and tutors. Chapter 4 considers matters relating to the design and development of online learning environments. The complexities and precise specifications required by this type of learning environment call for supporting frameworks that incorporate the contributions of the different stakeholders, such as educators, tutors, technologists and learners. This chapter proposes such a development framework that incorporates educational and systems development approaches. It also provides a reflection on implementation models resulting from the design and development of online learning environments. Traditional pedagogical models for on-campus education have been researched quite extensively, resulting in various propositions. Similarly, online learning settings have been the object of numerous studies funded nationally and internationally.Therefore, action planning and action taking in online learning can be well supported by accumulated theory and practice. However, due to fast-moving developments in the field, these models need constant review and improvement. Nevertheless, it is important to make a distinction between general pedagogical models and implementation models. Pedagogical models are based on general philosophies and epistemological assumptions that are aimed at supporting educationalists and tutors in thinking, designing and preparing their courses. This chapter presents an implementation model for use with pedagogical models in particular contexts and settings. Pedagogical models tend to be less susceptible to change, whereas implementation models have to accompany the change in context, technology and learner profile. Chapter 5 deliberates issues relating to the use of online learning environments and corresponding needs in terms of online learning support, be it online tutoring, online learning skills or online learning resources. Therefore, this chapter discusses tutoring strategies to support learning according to the pedagogical model adopted. Strategies to support and encourage problem-based, collaborative and work-based learning are proposed. Methods and examples are discussed and analysed in context. Evaluation of online learning is discussed in Chapter 6.The chapter reviews the role of processes of evaluation in educational research in general and in action


research in particular. Evaluation processes are seen as embedded in the action research model and must include formative and summative evaluation.Whenever possible, follow-up investigation of the impact of participating in the programme is undertaken. Methods and examples of such evaluation processes are covered. Chapter 7 contains a discussion of the validity and utility of action research in practice. It may be that in the very near future, online learning as a distinct concept may have disappeared, ICT-mediated learning may become ubiquitous and a natural part of the learner’s environment. Nevertheless, action research will still be a valid educational research methodology, just as practice will be a valuable means of informing and generating innovation.

Chapter 2

An action research framework for online learning As discussed in Chapter 1, the most suitable approach for educational research in general, and educational informatics in particular, seems to be one that uses methodological pluralism and active intervention of all the stakeholders in the issue being researched, i.e. action research. It was also discussed that the models being proposed for this type of research are in the main very broad and therefore difficult to apply in specific research contexts. This clearly indicates the need for specific action research models or frameworks adapted to the complexities and specificities of particular contexts.These generic models usually involve a number of steps or stages that help to guide the research process and are nowadays strongly influenced by principles of experiential learning as developed by authors such as Kolb et al. (1971), Kolb (1984), Argyris and Schön (1978), Schön (1983), and Argyris and Schön (1996).

Experiential learning Experiential learning stems from two main concepts drawn together by Kolb et al. (1971):‘learning by doing’, first attributed to Dewey (1938), as quoted by Kolb (1984:22); and Lewin’s (1946) action research models.This new conceptualisation of learning was the basis for the concept of ‘reflection and reflective practice’, 13


proposed by Argyris and Schön (1978) and later by Schön (1983), which translates the use of experiential learning into an integral element of professional practice (see Figure 2.1). The experiential learning approach aims to encourage practitioners to feel learning as well as to reflect upon it, to let them try out and validate new behaviours, new strategies and solutions as well as new emotional and cognitive responses (Pfeiffer and Ballew, 1988b). Consequently, experiential learning occurs when a person engages in some activity, looks back at the activity critically, abstracts some useful insight from the analysis, and puts the result to work (Pfeiffer and Ballew, 1988a). The most commonly used experiential framework was proposed by Kolb et al. (1971) as a four-step cycle of learning: Doing, Reflecting, Understanding and Applying. After engaging in an activity, the experiential learner should reflect on that experience calling upon prior knowledge and experiences, understand the knowledge involved in the activity with the aid of conceptual and theoretical materials, and finally apply it in subsequent experiences. Reflecting and Understanding are often seen as collaborative activities where social negotiation of meaning has an important part. Kolb’s learning cycle (see Figure 2.2) is based on the concept of structured activities, which consist of designs for participation aiming to create a common experience to be studied and discussed by experiential learners (Pfeiffer and Ballew, 1988b).These activities can be seen as the ‘doing’ part of experiential learning and can be carried out by individuals or small groups.According to Pfeiffer and Ballew (1988a), the following are common individual and group experiential learning activities: making products or models, creating objects, role playing, writing, solving problems, sharing information, giving and receiving feedback, analysing case material, negotiating or bargaining, planning, competing and collaborating. By carrying out the activities and then reflecting upon and discussing what was experienced, new knowledge is actively constructed and the process of learning is

Concrete experience

Testing implications of concepts in new situations

Observations and reflections

Formation of abstract concepts and generalisations

Figure 2.1 The Lewinian action research model as described by Kolb (1984)


15

Concrete experience

Grasping via APPREHENSION Divergent knowledge

Accomodative knowledge Active experimentation

Transformation via EXTENSION

Transformation via INTENTION

Reflective observations

Assimilative knowledge

Convergent knowledge Grasping via COMPREHENSION Abstract conceptualisation

Figure 2.2 Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb, 1984:42) in practice very similar to what is proposed by the constructivist theories of learning also advocated by Nunes (1999). This topic is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.To aid in the reflection of what has been experienced, the learner calls upon and incorporates prior knowledge and experiences. Therefore, in the cycle of experiential learning the learner reuses existing knowledge to construct new knowledge.An important aspect of the experiential learning cycle is the inclusion of group activities or facilities of communication between all stakeholders in the learning or research process, so that reflection on the learning activity becomes a result of social negotiation of meaning.Thus, new knowledge is not constructed in isolation, where it may become distorted, but in a wider context and subject to multiple perspectives (Nunes, 1999). Building on Kolb’s model and some of these issues, Pfeiffer and Ballew (1988a) propose a more elaborate cycle in five stages, as described in Figure 2.3.The basic assumptions are that the learner engages in practice-based learning activities, from which meaning is discovered and validated through social negotiation with all stakeholders in the learning process. In the first step of Experiencing, the learner engages in the activity (Doing). In the second step, Publishing, the learner posts, reports and shares recorded reactions and observations made during the activity. Following that, in the third step, Processing, the learner examines and discusses the patterns and dynamics of the activity and then aims to extrapolate the experience from the learning setting to the outside world – Generalising. Finally, the learner should progress to Applying the learned concepts in actual situations in which he/she is involved, and eventually plan new experiences.


Experiencing Applying Publishing Generalising Processing

Figure 2.3 The Experiential Learning Cycle adopted from Pfeiffer and Ballew (1988a)

Pfeiffer and Ballew (1988a) consider the structured experience to be the entire experience the experiential learner engages with throughout the whole experiential learning cycle.The learner carries out an activity that is designed to result in a certain type of knowledge acquisition (learning), announces his or her reactions, discusses what happened and what that means, draws conclusions and produces generalisations about the learning process that occurred and finally plans the application of that newly acquired knowledge. Cornford and Pollock (2003:23) note that when conducting research on ‘home ground’, they face an ‘increasing blurred boundary between “research” and “doing” ICT projects’. Thus, online learning researchers are becoming reflective practitioners and action research models need to specifically support that very complex role.

Generic action research models Remarkably, and despite being one of the major philosophical stances behind experiential learning, action research has been strongly influenced by this ‘learning-by-doing’ epistemology and corresponding ‘reflective practitioner’ ethos. Action researchers have been inspired to adopt models reflecting the experiential learning cycle. The assumption is that the researcher will learn and gain understanding of the problem being studied by actively intervening in its solution. Therefore, most action research models, cycles and frameworks are strongly influenced by the experiential learning rationale and cycle. For example, Zuber-Skerritt (1996:3) defines action research as a cyclical process of planning, action (as the implementation of the plan), observation (collection of data and evaluation) and finally reflection, resulting in decisions for the next cycle. This generic cycle could be used to summarise most action research models.


17

Nevertheless, different authors and researchers have interpreted action research in different ways and proposed substantially different models using variations of the above. These models comprise different numbers of steps or stages, ranging from the two-stage, somewhat minimalist approach proposed by Blum (1955) to the very elaborate, eight-stage model of Cohen et al. (2000:235–7). Blum’s action research model consists of two simple stages, namely diagnostic and testing of hypotheses. The diagnostic stage involves the analysis of identified problems and the development of hypotheses to address them. The second stage calls for the testing of hypotheses by conscious direct intervention or contextualised experimentation. However, this approach is somewhat reductionist and oversimplifies the initial proposals by Lewin (1946, 1948) which described action research as comprising four stages: planning, acting, observing and reflecting – a process more closely related to what is today considered as experiential learning. Most modern authors have developed frameworks and models following this basic rationale, for example Kemmis and McTaggart (1988 and 1992), Ebbutt (1985), Hopkins (1985), Gill (1986), McNiff (1988), McKernan (1991), Altrichter and Gstettner (1993), Cunningham (1995), Zuber-Skerritt (1996), Gill and Johnson (1997),Wadsworth (1998), Stringer (1999), Cohen et al. (2000) and Coghlan and Brannick (2001). Some of these models are very generic and could be used for research in any complex social science problem, such as the ones proposed by Stringer (1999) and Coghlan and Brannick (2001) and discussed in Chapter 1. Some are specifically designed for particular sub-fields of social science, such as those by Baskerville (1999) for information systems research, Zuber-Skerritt (1996) and Cunningham (1995) who specifically study organisational behaviour research, Gill and Johnson (1997) for management research, and finally Gill (1986) who is interested in the application of action research in organisational development and consultancy. In terms of educational action research, several authors have proposed frameworks and models, ranging from specific models for classroom research (Hopkins, 1985) to broad models for educational research, such as the ones proposed by Altrichter and Gstettner (1993) and Cohen et al. (2000). The model proposed by Altrichter and Gstettner (1993) is fairly general and still quite closely connected to Lewin’s (1946, 1948) proposals.This four-stage model encompasses finding the starting point for the research, clarifying and expressing the problem, developing and implementing action strategies, and finally posting and disseminating the acquired knowledge. This framework, although clear, and consistent with basic action research and experiential learning premises, is still too generic and fails to address explicitly the complex context and requirements of educational research, namely by clearly separating experiment design and planning from action and data collection. In turn, these research stages should be separated from data analysis, interpretation and dissemination. Cohen et al. (2000:235–7) propose an eight-stage framework that provides a much better support for education researchers. 1

Identification, evaluation and formulation of the study.


2

3 4 5

6 7

8

Discussion, negotiation and establishing of the research question, involving all stakeholders, i.e. tutors, educationalists, learners, administrators and sometimes even sponsors. Literature review. Revision and redefinition of the research question and establishing specific objectives or testable hypotheses. Selection of research procedures, i.e. research methods, data collection methods, choice of materials, learning and teaching methods, allocation of resources and tasks, etc. Selection of evaluation procedures. Implementation of the research design, i.e. action including data collection, monitoring of the activities, keeping of records, transmission of feedback to the research team, as well as classification and analysis of data. Interpretation of data, inferences drawn from the data, overall evaluation, and extension of theory.

Despite failing to refer explicitly to the spiral nature of action research, which is implicit in step 7, this proposition by Cohen et al. (2000:235–7) is a much more useful guide for action researchers and provides a much more structured framework for investigation in educational settings. However, it is still fairly generic and could in all probability be used in other fields of research. Its major drawback is failing to provide clear links to the pedagogical, ethical, institutional, policy and even administrative issues that often constrain this type of research. This lack of a holistic view has been one of the most persistent criticisms of action research. Bridges (2001) claims that there are both a priori arguments and empirical evidence as to the limitations or insufficiency of action research as a response to wider programme, institutional and even policy needs. Handal (1991) suggests that when engaged in action research, educationalists spend most of their time ‘constructing practice’ at localised and technical levels and little time on ‘deconstructing practice’ at a theoretical level useful in other contexts and at wider levels.This apparent limitation leads authors such as Saunders et al. (2000:95) and Eden and Huxham (1996) to argue that action research should have implications beyond the immediate project, in both theoretical and practical terms. Admittedly, in order to allow for the acquisition of knowledge to be more widely applicable and enable institutional and even policy change, action research frameworks must provide a more specific focus on action in specific contexts. In educational research, this focus should include clear links to pedagogical, ethical, institutional, policy and administrative aspects of the educational setting. In educational informatics in particular, the added complexity of having to cope with ICT as the learning and teaching environment must be considered. In fact, online learning poses an additional challenge for educationalists, which consists of discovering the natural constraints associated with – and opportunities provided by – a highly connected yet deeply fragmented world (Ryder and Wilson, 1996).This chapter aims at proposing a specific framework to support action research in online learning research.


19

An action research model for online learning Computers and their role in education, both in the present and in the near future, are probably one of the most common topics of discussion in the educational community. As argued by Cummings (1995), computer-mediated educational technology offers promising potential for use in computer-assisted learning (CAL); as personal computer (PC) tools (word processors, spreadsheets, etc.); in computer-based multimedia applications (text, audio, graphics, animation, video); in hypermedia applications; in simulations and game-like ‘edutainment’ products; in integrated learning environments; and even in virtual reality (VR) and artificial intelligence applications. However, ICT has changed considerably since the early 1990s, especially in the area of authoring and in terms of broader access to a range of increasingly powerful, flexible and friendly systems and information sources. Consequently, HE and FE are slowly incorporating new modes of learning and teaching supported by ICT. Sometimes the term ‘online learning’, is used interchangeably with others such as open learning, networked learning, virtual learning and the latest buzzword, e-learning.The main characteristic linking all these terms is the use of ICT as a delivery vehicle and all are frequently used to describe learning that is associated with ICT-supported environments, i.e. with courses that are not wholly delivered using traditional face-to-face methods. For the remainder of this book, the term online learning will be used to summarise the characteristics of these overlapping delivery methods, i.e. as an umbrella term for learning mediated by ICT and Internet-based technologies. As discussed in Chapter 1, research into online learning has resulted in the emerging field of educational informatics, which interacts with computer science, information science, educational studies and psychology. Modern ICT results from the convergence of computing and telecommunications, and the resulting development of technologies such as e-mail, video conferencing and bulletin board systems, resource-based learning environments and, of course, web-based environments. This has provided greater opportunities for sharing information and interaction between individuals and groups. Benefits for the learner resulting from the use of online learning by the tutor and the institutions have been discussed by a number of authors such as Stamatis et al. (1999), Nunes and Fowell (1996a) and Eisenstadt and Vincent (1998), and could be summarised as follows: ● ● ● ● ● ●

electronic distribution of course material; flexibility for students – when to study, at what pace – supporting different learning styles; accommodation of different ability levels; establishment of communication between students and tutors, and between students; greater access to information; greater flexibility in maintaining and updating course documentation.


These benefits were summarised by Benjamin (1994), as quoted by Salmon (2000:11): ‘the learner is unlocked from the shackles of fixed and rigid schedules and from physical limitations’ and ‘[the learner] is released into an information world which reacts to his or her own pace of learning’. Despite its potential, and some successful cases, online learning is still not being extensively used in HE and FE and remains greatly under-utilised in this context. The question that immediately arises is: what are the reasons behind this apparent failure? Or, as Cummings (1995) puts it, why are online learning non-users nonusers? In answering this question, researchers and defenders of online learning often succumb to the temptation of attributing this failure entirely to the inertia and ineptitude of educators and educational organisations.This is a problem common to all computer-mediated education technologies, as discussed by Cummings (1995), who lists a set of faculty resistance barriers: lack of computer literacy amongst faculty; difficulties in access to ICT resources; lack of support for design, development, maintenance and even the use of ICT resources; lack of reliability and consistency of ICT solutions and persisting outdated traditions. In the specific case of HE, this faculty resistance is particularly pronounced.The failure of online learning could additionally be attributed to the secondary importance attached to teaching in comparison to research activities by the majority of academics (Darby, 1992) and to the ‘Not Invented Here’ syndrome pointed out by Laurillard et al. (1993).This syndrome reflects the fact that academics are just about prepared to recommend a colleague’s textbook, but would not take on video- or computer-based teaching material developed elsewhere, as the teaching philosophy would be unlikely to match their own.This is an important point and should not be dismissed as being simply lecturers’ protectiveness of their own teaching. These strong arguments would justify the current generalised status of ICT in HE, where it is still used mainly for word processing, algebraic and statistical calculations, drill and practice exercises, and Internet access. The role of online learning is normally restricted to the set of lecture notes online or simply lists of resources available on the web. What this reveals is an extraordinary discrepancy between educationalists’ perception of the high value and potential of ICT as an educational technology and its real use. Such discrepancy cannot be justified exclusively by the factors described above. In truth, responsibility for the current situation may equally lie with those who so unyieldingly defend online learning. In fact, this is been a prevalent state of affairs since the mid 1980s when Clark (1985), examining computer-based and televised instruction, pointed out that media advocacy is one of the more predictable, recurring enthusiasms in education. Similarly, Christensen et al. (1993) highlighted hypermedia as only one of the latest IT buzzwords of the time.Therefore, ICT, although recognised as a very promising educational technology for learning and teaching purposes, seems to be constantly falling into the traps that Maddux et al. (1994) called the ‘Everest Syndrome’.This refers to the attitude among educators that ICT is used for the same reason Hillary


21

said he climbed Mount Everest – just because it is there. In fact, when using a specific technology there is a fundamental question that must be considered: If the design of modern information systems makes a tool available, is the mere existence of the tool justification for its use in particular ways? (Cunningham et al., 1993) Failing to address this question results in the Everest Syndrome, and this attitude among educationalists is potentially responsible for the apparent failure to establish online learning as a creditable educational technology. In fact, this approach to the technology focuses undue attention on questions about what computers and authoring packages can be made to do, thus distracting researchers, instructional designers and educationalists from asking the more crucial questions about what this technology should accomplish and what its role should be in the teaching and learning process. As a result, educational and pedagogical issues are overlooked, and the systematic analysis and design of the technologies for specific learning purposes is neglected. Consequently, online learning often results in poor, ineffective applications. McKendree (1994) uses the analogy of the camcorder to characterise the resulting situation: It lets amateurs make movies about themselves which they and their immediate family and friends can enjoy. However, it is unlikely that you or I will want to rent it from the video-store and watch it.The professionals are much better able to design and make something, for a wider audience. […] It is fine if some lecturers want to take time to hack together some online material for themselves and their students.They will probably have the pride and commitment to get them to use it. However, the material they produce will possibly not be as flexible or as widely applicable as something crafted professionally. (McKendree, 1994) In an attempt to resolve these problems, researchers and practitioners have focused on two main areas when implementing, delivering and evaluating online learning: ●

●

instructional design – centred on identifying and implementing a learning environment combining pedagogical subject matter and tutoring issues (Moore, 1991; Croft, 1993; Nunes, 1999). learner support systems and resource design – which include tutoring and counselling (Burge et al., 1988) as well as specially prepared self-study learning materials, already available learning resources (including web-based resources), locally accessible resources (e.g. local library), face-to-face teaching from travelling teachers and/or local tutors, correspondence or electronically mediated teaching, and even group activities (QAA, 1999:21–2).


Any action research model or framework specifically aimed at supporting online learning development must provide clear links to these two main areas.There is a rich and extensive body of related research, most of which addresses issues of learning and teaching, i.e. learning experience, pedagogic approaches, tutoring strategies, design of online environments, etc. (McPherson and Nunes, 2002a). However, for online learning to be successful, it is not enough that the courses are well designed, the module delivery adopts appropriate pedagogic approaches and the tutors are well versed in their subject areas and able to facilitate the courses online. It is also imperative to pay attention to surrounding issues such as institutional and organisational strategy, management processes and programme structure. Managing online programmes poses a new set of challenges and problems that need to be carefully considered and researched. There is a wealth of practical experience of managing these programmes scattered throughout the higher education system in both the UK and Europe. In truth, the increasing success of this type of learning is based on the positive strategies and criteria emerging from this practical experience. Yet, because academics involved in setting up online learning courses and programmes have tended to concentrate their research on teaching and learning issues, rather than on management issues, there is very little integrative research incorporating this element of the process (McPherson and Nunes, 2002b). Therefore, it is important that action research frameworks should take into consideration such environmental aspects.

Online learning implementation In order to better understand and integrate all the required elements of online learning design, development and delivery into a holistic view, practitioners and researchers require an overall framework. Khakhar and Quirchmayr (1998:7) defend the idea that such a framework should focus on how technology can efficiently support tutors and educationalists in their capacity to provide learners with high quality learning environments, support materials and learning and teaching strategies, within the institutional and social environment in which they are embedded. In view of that, Goodyear (1999) proposes that this framework should aim at: ● ● ● ● ●

improving the quality of the organisational environment in which online learning takes place; developing pedagogical frameworks appropriate to the environment in which learning is taking place; enhancing the skills of teachers, trainers and managers in the use of innovative methods and techniques; ensuring the quality and ‘user-friendliness’ of learning materials and online services; encouraging the recognition of qualifications obtained through online learning.


23

A number of authors have proposed frameworks on different aspects of online learning. For instance,Wills et al. (1999) have evaluated a number of such frameworks for open and distance learning (ODL), concluding that these have been crucial in the successful application of ICT to learning settings. Digital technology is used extensively for varied purposes and in varied ways, depending on the intended audience for the course, and the availability and cost of technology. The capabilities of the new technologies have made it possible for a more interactive experience that more closely parallels face-to-face teaching – in effect creating a virtual classroom. Wills (1999) This clearly shows the main concerns of online learning developers: the effort to try and harness the promise of new ICT while balancing the organisational constraints and opportunities (provision of specific ICT solutions, willingness to adopt particular modes of teaching and learning, institutional policies, overall aims and objectives) with the pedagogical and learning requirements of tutors and learners. These concerns are represented in the framework shown in Figure 2.4, which was adapted from Al Rawas (2001).

High

Organisational context

Organisational factors

•

Organisational strategies and policies

• Management and administration

Enabling technologies

• VLEs

Curriculum development

• CMC • • Teaching and • learning software

•

Instructional design

Academic staff Educational specialists Subject matter specialists

• •

Delivery Academic staff ICT specialists

• Educational specialists

Low

Low

Academic involvement

• Academic staff

• •

Researchers Tutors

High

Figure 2.4 An online learning framework presented at workshops in ICALT 2002 and ICCE 2002 and adapted from Al Rawas (2001)


Organisational context Organisational context is probably the most critical factor in online learning development and at the same time the most neglected by researchers and practitioners. Through decisions made at an executive level, organisations may either facilitate or hinder development of online learning courses (McPherson, 2002). Administrative procedures and financial processes, as well as corporate views on course philosophies, learning models and strategies can have significant impact on any chosen online learning solution on a variety of levels, ranging from the choice of ICT packages to the choice of pedagogical models (McPherson, 2002) and including security, maintenance and support issues (Al Rawas, 2001). Influence and interference of this nature is particularly prevalent at a departmental level. Staff willingness to engage in an online learning initiative is one of the most important factors in its success. As pointed out by Al Rawas (2001), the success depends on the ‘buy-in’ by staff involved and this may be influenced by: familiarity with ICT; job security issues; belief in and commitment to the solutions adopted; ability to adopt new learning and teaching strategies; and appropriate staff development. Similarly, departmental decisions regarding the availability of resources and the management of the educational setting may restrict possible modes of delivery or evaluation (McPherson, 2002).According to Khakhar (1998), this implies that successful online learning ‘requires leadership that can release an institution’s creativity and entrepreneurship, creating a working environment in which individuals and groups can respond to emerging opportunities and changing environments’. Finally, and as discussed by Al Rawas (2001), the organisational context also includes the wider social environment in which the organisation is set and consequently the governance and legal frameworks to which it is subject. In sum, organisational context brings a number of important constraints to online learning, ranging from logistical and financial considerations to barriers set by staff motivation (Goodyear, 1999). Nevertheless, and still according to Goodyear (1999), online learning projects often create protected niches for themselves within the organisational context, so that some of these constraints can be temporarily relaxed. All the same, there is one constraint inherent or intrinsic to this type of project, namely ICT itself as the enabling technology.

Enabling technologies Online learning is inherently related to ICT.These enabling technologies fall into three main categories: the ubiquitous workstation (for learners and tutors this usually means a multimedia PC equipped with a web browser), the communication technologies that enable widespread learner networking and access to the web, and the software tools that enable educationalists to author and deliver online learning.According to Hall (2002a), from this easy base line many technologically enabled avenues open up to enhanced and more successful online learning, such as: broadband to enable


25

live video events and rapid large file transfers, wireless and mobile for anytime anywhere learning, inexpensive peripherals, webcams, scanners, colour inkjet printers, for enhanced learner interaction, learning management systems to ease the administration load and instructional management systems standards to increase reusability. Hall (2002a) In sum, enabling ICT technologies comprise both the underlying infrastructure and the specific learning technologies.The appropriate, efficient and educationally sound use of these technologies needs careful planning, resourcing and support.

Curriculum development Curriculum development can be defined as a process that systematically responds to the most crucial set of questions in a learning setting: what is supposed to be learned; why is it relevant to the wider learning programme; what learning and teaching strategies should be adopted; and finally what evaluation and assessment strategies need to be in place in order to ensure that the desired aims and learning outcomes are achieved. This systematic process was first proposed and defined by Tyler (1949) based on the four principles of purpose, experience, organisation and evaluation, that is: ● ● ● ●

defining appropriate learning objectives; establishing useful learning experiences; organising learning experiences to have a maximum cumulative effect; evaluating the curriculum and revising those aspects that did not prove to be effective.

Through the application of these basic principles, the role of educationalists and tutors involved in the design of curricula has shifted to that of a researcher. In the development of any curriculum using Tyler’s (1949) approach, hypotheses are established in direct relation to the expected learning outcomes for students. As the curriculum is implemented, educationalists and tutors become reflective practitioners, determining whether or not their curricular hypotheses are in fact demonstrated by learning outcomes; evaluating successes and failures; formulating new strategies and solutions; and returning to the curricular plans to make any adjustments as required. As materials and procedures are developed, they are tried out, their results appraised, their inadequacies identified, suggested improvements indicated; there is replanning, redevelopment and then reappraisal; and in this kind of continuing cycle, it is possible for the curriculum and instruction program to be continuously improved over the years. Tyler (1949: 123)


However, Tyler’s approach has been criticised for not explicitly including learner input. Furthermore, it is fairly generic and not specifically developed for online learning. In contrast, Heinich et al. (1996) proposed a learner-centred model which they referred to as the ASSURE model.This was designed as a ‘procedural guide for planning and conducting instruction that incorporates media’ (Heinrich et al., 1996:31) and offers a six-step procedure: Analyse learners, State objectives, Select methods, media and materials, Utilise materials, Require learner participation, Evaluate. Curriculum as a process of development for classroom-based learning primarily involves the subject expert/teacher in tasks that require them to act variously as tutor, author, project manager, designer, desktop publisher, editor and instructional designer. The process is often heavily dependent upon the past experience of the participants and is iterated over a number of delivery cycles to an optimum solution. The considerably higher resource commitment required by online learning demands an expanded and indepth curriculum development phase, which is much more a team effort. Needs analysis must take into account the requirements and aspirations of a more diverse learner group and their employers/parents.The curriculum must be planned and documented in sufficient detail for the content to be developed out of sequence and by different members of the team applying their own specialist skills.The project management task becomes more critical and complex (Hall, 2002b).

Instructional design Environments to support online learning require detailed specification of learning needs, materials, activities and delivery methods and needs. The complexities of integration of the different ICT components according to these needs and to sound pedagogical approaches, demand frameworks not too dissimilar to information systems design and development methodologies. These have been traditionally denominated instructional design (ID) methodologies. Instructional design in the context of action research will be extensively discussed in Chapter 4.

Delivery The delivery of online learning must address issues relating to: online learner skills; online learning facilitation, tutoring and support; the effective and appropriate use of online learning materials; the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools to enable both peer-to-tutor and peer-to-peer interaction; and tutor strategies, skills and training. Often, online learning makes use of virtual learning environments (VLEs), which then imply an extra level of complexity for the learner and additional problems of maintenance, communication and support for the tutor. In order to address some of these issues, Salmon (2000:25–37) proposes a model developed through action research.This five-step model provides a ‘set of constructs’ that can be used as a guide to online tutoring: providing Access and Motivation of learners; Online Socialisation with learners in order to enable participants to gain


27

familiarity with the online environment; enabling and facilitating Information Exchange; facilitating and encouraging Knowledge Construction through the designed environment; and finally providing scaffolding for Development of online skills and behaviours that enable students to pursue their learning objectives.This model and issues of online delivery are further discussed in Chapter 6.

The Educational Management Action Research (EMAR) model From this discussion of online learning characteristics, it is clear that the complexity of its components is such that a general action research framework, of the type mentioned in Chapter 1, would be of little support to the researcher. Environments to support online learning require detailed specification of learning needs, materials, activities and delivery methods as well as special needs consideration, and all of these are constrained by the organisational context.Therefore, no simple template or checklist can hope to predict and resolve the complex interactive processes involved in this type of learning (Fox and Herrman, 2000). A different type of framework is needed, based on empirical and research evidence, which can support educational researchers ‘to provide opportunities to investigate perspectives and rehearse and test responses to them, thus reducing misunderstandings, friction and conflict within team environments’ (Fox and Herrman, 2000). At the core of such a framework is the collection of feedback from administrators, tutors and learners prior to, during and after course delivery, so as to adapt solutions to specific teaching and learning needs. Thus, research projects aiming at addressing online learning issues, using an action research approach, require appropriate scaffolding for innovative thinking and research.This scaffolding must consider the main aspects discussed above, that is the organisational context, the pedagogical models, the corresponding educational settings and evaluation. The Educational Management Action Research (EMAR) model, proposed in Figure 2.5, is intended to provide such scaffolding within a spiral action research approach. The model draws on an initial framework proposed and discussed by Goodyear (1999) and Khakhar (1998).This was extremely useful as a first attempt to build a general action research management framework. However, as Goodyear (1999) acknowledges, it was only a starting point for discussion and thus was in danger of oversimplifying complex relationships and processes. The main drawback of this initial proposal was the fact that it did not include explicit evaluation components, which are paramount for the persistent improvement implicit in action research. The model proposed in Figure 2.5 also draws on the framework suggested by Coghlan and Brannick (2001:11). Action research results from spiral research cycles, starting with a process of identifying a problem area – a pre-step often based on the previous experience in the field of the researcher. As shown in Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1 (page 9), the actual cycle comprises Diagnosis (data gathering, analysis and representation), Action Planning, Action Taking, and Action Evaluation. In this case, Diagnosis is the identification of a learning need that requires development or improvement of a particular course (Nunes and McPherson, 2002b); Action


Pedagogic Model

Educational Setting Task

Philosophy

Course

Learning Models Pedagogical Strategy

Pedagogical Tactics

Learning Activities

Action Taking

Action Planning

Organisational Context

Learning Outcomes

Course and Programme Evaluation

Action Evaluation

Figure 2.5 The Educational Management Action Research (EMAR) model

Planning consists of curriculum design according to organisational context and pedagogical models; Action Taking consists of instructional design and delivery; and finally, Action Evaluation consists of learning activities, module and programme evaluation in the context of the research question. Bearing this in mind, the EMAR model is based on four basic building blocks: the Organisational Context, the Pedagogical Model, the Educational Setting and the Evaluation Process. All educational programmes that make use of online learning exist within an Organisational Context, such as a university, a corporation or a virtual learning institute (Goodyear, 1999). As discussed above, organisational context is both the enabler and the constraining force for any educational programme. It poses constraints on the pedagogical model, namely by imposing corporate views on course philosophy, as well as learning models and strategies. Additionally, the organisational context poses constraints on the design, resources and management of the educational setting. Finally, it may pose constraints on evaluation modes. In action research terms, the organisational context influences the research, by providing the setting by which tutors, learners, courses and ICT are integrated. The Pedagogical Model adopted for online learning is usually proposed by curriculum designers and the course team.As will be discussed in Chapter 3, there are a number of such models suggested in the literature. Different models would


29

impact on the design of the educational setting, that is, the corresponding tutoring strategies, learning tasks and activities, learning outcomes, support mechanisms and ICT technologies to be used.Therefore, any action research project in online learning needs to take into account the explicit (sometimes implicit) pedagogical philosophy called upon by educationalists in the design, development and use of the educational setting, which forms the research context. In fact, the Educational Setting depends on the curriculum design for particular courses within the organisational context and following a particular pedagogical model. As discussed above, curriculum design is a process by which the aims and objectives, content, delivery mode and assessment procedures of a course are decided, taking into consideration different factors that affect the whole programme, such as: the student and his/her knowledge about the subject; the specific nature of the subject matter; the subject expert and the way she/he does things; the method and media of delivery (Nunes et al. 2000b).This process of curriculum design determines the syllabus, the content materials, the learning tasks, the resulting learning activities and the ICT learning environment. The conjunction of these five factors forms the educational setting (McPherson and Nunes, 2002a). The fundamental contention of the action researcher is that complex social processes can be best studied by introducing changes into practice and observing the effects of these changes (Baskerville, 1999).Therefore, the most important part of any educational action research model is the Evaluation Process (McPherson and Nunes, 2002b). According to Thorpe (1990:5), evaluation is the collection, analysis and interpretation of information about any aspect of a programme of education and training, as part of a recognised process of judging its effectiveness, its efficiency and any other outcomes it may have.Assessment is an integral part of the programme and, although part of evaluation, should not be considered as evaluation per se (McPherson and Nunes, 2001). Evaluation could further be elaborated as a process with the following characteristics: ● ● ● ●

inclusiveness – all activities related to the learning process should be monitored and analysed; component activities – usually data collection, analysis and interpretation; planned activities – providing useful feedback and remedial action into the programme whenever needed; both intended and unintended effects – scope of evaluation should not be limited to overt objectives of a programme, but should include any unintended effects and occurrences.

EMAR results from ongoing action research undertaken at the Department of Information Studies of the University of Sheffield into curriculum and instructional design for continuing professional distance education (CPDE), that is, a seven-year process of action research and ongoing formative evaluation of an MA in Information Technology Management (MA ITM) CPDE programme. This course will be described throughout the book in case study boxes, and will be used to illustrate how action research can be applied in practice.


MA in ITM case study: ‘Bridging the gap between IT users and IT specialists’ The use of information technology has revolutionised the workplace, yet there is evidence of a substantial gap in understanding between professional IT systems designers, developers and administrators and the potential users and managers in organisations. While the pattern varies somewhat from country to country, the general picture is that IT specialists in organisations are usually graduates of computer science and technology courses or of science and engineering, who then go on to receive in-company training. In contrast, managers are likely to have a non-technological background both in terms of study and qualification (Chivers and McPherson, 1994). In general, these managers hold management qualifications such as MBAs or Diplomas in Business Management Studies, which only include superficial modules on IT and IT management (Chivers and McPherson, 1994). In the UK, this overall pattern is particularly evident due to the now notorious ‘art/science’ divide between graduates.This phenomenon is probably caused by early specialisation at school level, brought about by the narrowness of studies imposed by the A-level straitjacket. There is clearly a need for more qualified and experienced IT managers and consultants with good communication, interpersonal, business and management skills. The MA in Information Technology Management (ITM) is a continuing professional development education (CPDE) programme offered by the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield, which aims to develop this mixture of skills. Emphasis is placed on improving knowledge, understanding and practical skills, as well as developing the confidence to apply these in the world of work. Professional development and training in this area could open up highly skilled job opportunities in an expanding area to students completing the programme.

Characterisation of CPDE CPDE encompasses two different and distinguishable components: CPD as Continuing Professional Development and DE as Distance Education. Both fields of educational studies have been extensively and separately studied and researched. DE is slowly incorporating emerging modes of delivery. Sometimes even the term is interchangeably used with terms such as open learning, networked learning, virtual learning and the very recent e-learning or online learning.These terms are frequently used to describe DE associated with a particular delivery environment for courses that are not wholly delivered using traditional face-to-face, on-campus lectures within HE.The main characteristic linking


all these terms is the use of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) as a delivery vehicle.This new educational technology (EdT) is the result of the convergence of computing and telecommunications, and the subsequent development of ICTs such as e-mail, video conferencing and bulletin board systems. Thus, this has provided new opportunities for sharing information and for interaction between individuals and groups. For the remainder of this case study, the term online learning will be used to summarise the characteristics of these overlapping delivery methods and as an umbrella term for all EdT and Internet-based learning. Online learning is one of the emerging modes of delivery for CPDE.

Historical notes The development of the programme was started in 1992 with the support of WiTEC (Women in Science, Engineering and Technology), which is a European network of universities, businesses and individuals working together in order to motivate, develop and support women taking up studies and careers in science, engineering and technology (SET). At the moment 11 countries take part in the WiTEC network: UK, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, Greece, Spain, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands (WiTEC, 2003). The actual conception, design and development of the programme were funded by the European Commission’s Community Programme for Education Teaching and Training (COMETT). This aims to encourage cooperation between universities and industry in the development and provision of training in fields involving advanced technology. While many of the COMETT projects deal with manufacturing, research and medical technology, the project that designed and implemented the MA in ITM aimed at developing a postgraduate/post-experience distance learning programme in the field of IT management (McPherson, 1995:7). This major initiative, specifically intended to benefit women, was funded by COMETT under strand Cb. This strand included a budget specifically allocated to longer study programmes to be delivered in open and distance learning form. From the WiTEC viewpoint, the relative lack of understanding by IT specialists of human and social interactions in the workplace was compounded by problems related to gender inequalities in IT management. These inequalities are still prevalent in the ICT sector today, as described by Greenfield et al. (2002): The number of women in ICT jobs is actually declining.The proportion of women in ICT jobs has fallen to 22 per cent, compared with

31


25 per cent in 1995. In software engineering jobs, women account for only 8 per cent of the workforce. (Greenfield et al., 2002:Appendices XIV) It was with these thoughts in mind that, in 1991, the WiTEC Executive Committee met in order to consider an application to COMETT to develop materials for a distance learning course entitled ‘Information Technology Management’. According to Chivers and McPherson (1994), this meeting deliberated the development of a flexibly delivered, postgraduate-level course, based largely on open learning materials studied at a distance, with some face-to-face learning sessions. Curiously, Chivers and McPherson noted that, according to their research, women IT specialists may be ‘as blind about the importance of the “people dimension” in relationship to IT systems […] as the men’. Consequently, even at the point of inception, the issue of whether the course should be exclusively for women or also open to men was debated. The conclusion was that, although to be primarily developed for women, it would be appropriate to have some male involvement in the course. The argumentation was that, while there are real advantages to women-only technology courses, not least in encouraging the less confident women to apply, in this case the intention was that women would leave the course to seek jobs as IT project managers and IT change consultants, and therefore needed to be very confident to work in a largely male environment (Chivers and McPherson, 1994). Furthermore, the course aimed at leading to a wellrecognised qualification, and in general, internationally recognised accreditation bodies would be reluctant to support a women-only course that specifically excluded men. This encouragement of women’s participation on the course has been by and large very successful, with overall student numbers being gender balanced. Nevertheless, the course contents, pedagogical methods and learning environment have always been gender neutral and do not favour either gender in any capacity. However, some consideration was given when writing learning materials and selecting case studies to ensure the use of gender neutral language and draw on practical examples from fields familiar to most women rather than from male dominated fields, such as the military or heavy engineering (McPherson, 1995:18).


Aims and objectives of the ITM course The MA in Information Technology Management aims to develop students’ ability to re-evaluate professional practice within the IT/computing sector in the context of current and emerging theory and research in IT management. Students are expected to acquire knowledge and skills in the use of information and communication technology (ICT) relating to information management within the IT sector and an understanding of the application of evidence-based approaches to problem solving and decision making relevant to their professional experience and needs.

Entry requirements Applicants are required to have either a degree in science, technology or engineering, with some IT work experience, or a non-technical degree combined with relevant managerial or administrative work experience within an IT environment. Applicants are also accepted without a first degree, but must have at least three years’ appropriate work experience, and show evidence of recent study.

The students This programme attracts students from all over the world (e.g. Malta, Mozambique and Norway to name but a few).The course primarily appeals to professionals with a technological background who need higher skills and qualifications specific to the management of IT environments. Usually, student motivation is derived from the need to acquire skills that will support either promotion within their organisation or the move to another organisation or a more managerial position.

Programme delivery The MA in ITM was initially designed in the early 1990s as a paper-based distance education programme. This traditional approach was due to pragmatic reasons linked to organisational restrictions and to lack of appropriate ICT infrastructure for both the university and the students. However, as Internet-based technologies have developed and become more accessible, this programme has evolved through action research into an online and web-based distance learning programme, making use of WebCT as its virtual learning environment (VLE). The programme has retained a considerable degree of its original flexibility and is delivered principally via distance learning, complemented with required attendance at a number of day schools.The programme is modular

33


in structure: Postgraduate Certificate students complete two modules over one year; Postgraduate Diploma students complete four modules over two years; and MSc students complete four modules and a research dissertation over three years. Each module, including coursework preparation, involves approximately ten hours’ study per week. Day schools are an effective way of extending and consolidating knowledge and skills assimilated from online learning sources. Students have the opportunity to meet module staff and discuss assignments, projects and any areas of difficulty. Most appreciated by the students is the opportunity to meet fellow students and share ideas and experiences.The course starts with an induction day school and a four-week online learning skills course that prepares students for the online learning environment used throughout the programme. Programme assessment takes the form of written assignments (of approximately 6,000–7,000 words in length) or equivalent project work at the end of each module. In addition, Masters level students must complete a substantial work-based dissertation.This involves doing a piece of independent research in the workplace based on situational analysis relevant to the individual’s working and professional environment. The topic for study is selected in consultation with appropriate members of teaching staff and tutors.The dissertation is a major part of the MA degree and each student is allocated an academic supervisor who will provide advice and guidance throughout the period of study.Additional support for the dissertation takes the form of an overview of research methodology and an introduction to the various research methods that may be applicable.

The learning environment Students’ learning activities are currently supported by an online learning environment provided by the ITM course team, using the facilities offered by WebCT, which is a virtual learning environment (VLE).VLEs are tightly integrated systems supporting and facilitating the creation of web-based educational environments. In fact, WebCT is a web-based platform for the delivery of online learning courses developed in 1995 by the University of British Columbia. It comprises a number of ICT tools, which allow educators to build collaborative learning environments. This online learning platform was launched commercially in 1997. The environments designed for the ITM course enable both peer–peer and tutor–peer interaction by means of already built-in computer-mediated communication (CMC) facilities. These facilities are of prime importance for learners to carry out their studies in distance education. WebCT offers both synchronous and asynchronous communication modes, namely e-mail,


electronic bulletin board, chat, and personal web space. Indications are that the chat facility is being well used by selected cohorts of students who have built a sense of community throughout a longer period of contact, whereas students coming to the environment in the first year do not use the CMC facilities to the same extent (Carr, 2000). There is also evidence that some individual students are much more active online than others, some of whom never contribute to online discussions. A fuller account of the role of this online learning environment, in both the course delivery and evaluation, will be covered in the next few chapters.

35

Chapter 3

Pedagogical models When designing online learning environments, action researchers, like all other designers, call on prior knowledge and experience. They bring to bear previous solutions and strategies they have used, have experienced or have seen that fit the particular constraints of the current situation (Duffy and Jonassen, 1992). These previous experiences play a central role in specifying the structure, contents and delivery strategies for the new environment.Therefore, if the pedagogical component of the design is not consciously considered and planned, the action researcher tends to incorporate his/her own model of learning into the environment, which may not be appropriate or adequate for the learning activities planned. Furthermore, the lack of an overall pedagogical strategy implies a lack of a consistent and adequate educational approach throughout the whole online learning environment (Nunes, 1999). In fact, when producing any learning materials, assumptions are made about the type of learning and the process of learning that it is hoped will take place (Jones and Mercer, 1993). Hence, online learning environments will always incorporate some form of learning model, which may or may not have been intentionally considered. So, one of the crucial factors to the success of an educational environment is that any assumptions that are made about the learner and the learning process, are incorporated into the design process in an explicit and consistent manner. Only with a clear sense of the theoretical foundations that underpin assumptions about learning and cognition, can an efficient online learning environment be appropriately designed.These theoretical foundations provide the means to choose a suitable educational approach.The selection of an approach can be seen as a pre-design concern and is the result of answering basic questions such as: why is the environment being developed; what is the focus of the environment; and who are the learners 36

Pedagogical models

37

(Nunes, 1999).The considered answer to these questions constitutes the Pedagogical Model of EMAR, as shown in Figure 3.1.

Historical notes As stated in Chapter 1, this book focuses on action research within HE, therefore in this context the aim is to produce online learning environments to support academic learning. Education has been central to the survival and success of human societies throughout the centuries. It is neither possible, nor appropriate, to review this vast field in this book. However, some questions about how we perceive learning and acquisition of knowledge, and how these perceptions have influenced our educational systems, are crucial to the understanding of action research in this context. The oldest and most natural form of learning is simply living with other humans and doing what they do (Viau, 1994).The corresponding earliest form of education based on this ‘learning by doing’ is apprenticeship. Apprentices learn a task, such as weaving, masonry or even thinking, under the tutelage of an expert (Honebein et al., 1993). Jordan (1987) identified the major characteristics of traditional apprenticeship learning: ●

● ● ●

●

Work is the driving force.The progressive mastering of tasks by apprentices is appreciated not as a step towards a distant, symbolic goal (such as a certificate), but for its immediate value in getting the work done. Apprentices start with skills that are relatively easy and where mistakes are least costly. Learning is focused on performance. It involves the ability to do, rather than the ability to discourse about a subject. Standards of performance are embedded in the work environment.What constitutes expert execution of a task is obvious, and judgments about the learner’s competence emerge naturally and continuously in the context of the work.The apprentice owns the problem of moving on to the acquisition of the next skill. Teachers and teaching are largely invisible. In apprenticeship, learning and informal job training in the workplace gives the impression that little teaching is going on.Whatever instruction the apprentice receives originates not from a teacher but from a worker doing his or her work, which the apprentice observes.

In short, apprenticeship learning is active, hands-on and based on physical experiences (Viau, 1994). Apprentices are inducted into a community of expert practice in which the teacher continuously engages in, and is a master at, the practice being learned. His or her performance constitutes the standard for the apprentice (Berryman, 1991).


Writing, and subsequently the invention of the printed word, brought new concepts and definitions into education (Viau, 1994). The learner now acquired knowledge about the real world from an intellectual distance, by reading about it. This new learner now has a reservoir of information available, organised and stored in books, and education consists of acquiring knowledge and skills through reading. Hands-on interaction with the real world continued to be the education of the working classes, but the intelligentsia were not expected to learn practical skills (Viau, 1994). The introduction of mass schooling at the end of the 19th century marked the final demise of the apprenticeship model in schooling (Honebein et al., 1993). Discrete subject areas appeared; social and professional knowledge was divided into independent subjects that we now recognise as mathematics, social studies, reading, language, science and art (Honebein et al., 1993). Knowledge is contained in the teacher’s lessons or in textbooks. Instruction is seen as essentially a process of engineering learning environments so that transmission of this knowledge from these sources to the student is efficient and effective (Knuth and Cunningham, 1993).As noted by Allen (1992), this idea that knowledge is something that can be objectively validated and prioritised, transmitted and acquired – as if it was a commodity apart from individual understanding, experience and needs – is the folk metaphor of the industrial and post-industrial age. This view of knowledge reflects assumptions of the objectivist philosophy that still prevails in our educational systems today. Objectivists believe in the existence of reliable knowledge about the world (Jonassen, 1991) which is received by learners passively from authoritative sources. At this stage, the philosophic, rather than the scientific, method was the main mode of representing the process of learning and the mind. At the turn of the 20th century, experimental psychology emerged and developed techniques for the experimental study of memory and the higher mental processes such as learning.The importance of this work for the practical world of education was immediately recognised. A new field in psychology opened up and an American, Edward Lee Thorndike, developed an important theory of learning that described how stimuli and responses were connected. Thorndike is usually considered the first educational psychologist. Educational psychology flourished within the progressive movement in education that had begun in the early 20th century. Educational psychologists became increasingly interested in how people receive, interpret, encode, store and retrieve information.Attempts to understand the cognitive process tried to interpret human problem solving, memory and creativity. Because of the wide diversity in human nature, instructional settings and fields of study, no general theory has been formulated that is applicable to all educational psychology. Instead, psychologists work on developing theories about particular phenomena in learning, motivation, development, teaching and instruction.These different theories of learning help educators to understand, predict and control human learning and behaviour, and therefore shape the way instruction is designed and facilitated. Consequently, the adoption of a particular theory of learning also influences the way educators design, develop

Pedagogical models

39

and use learning technologies and – more specifically for our purposes – online learning environments. Following the functional approach proposed by Thorndike and his so-called ‘law of effect’ – the more satisfying the result of a particular action, the better that action is learned – the American psychologist B. F. Skinner became the foremost exponent of the behaviourist school of psychology.This school of thought believes that human behaviour is explained in terms of physiological responses to external stimuli. This originated programmed instruction, a teaching technique in which the student is presented with a series of ordered, discrete bits of information, each of which he or she must understand before proceeding to the next. Behaviourism, in combination with the objectivist philosophy, has governed educational practices for most of the 20th century (Jegede, 1991). Objectivism maintains that the world is completely and correctly structured in terms of entities, properties and relations (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Reality is objective and external to the individual and consequently learning is dominated by the communication metaphor (Cunningham et al., 1993). Knowledge is external to the learner and contained in an authoritarian source, such as a textbook, a teacher’s lecture or even a computer-assisted learning (CAL) lesson. Learning occurs when this knowledge is transmitted to and received by the student (Nunes, 1999). As Kay (1991) puts it, students are seen as empty vessels that must be given knowledge, drop by drop, from the full teacher-vessel. Therefore, learning takes place in classrooms, not elsewhere (Cunningham et al., 1993), and the primary concern of educational institutions consists in transferring knowledge as an integral, self-sufficient substance, which comprises abstract, decontextualised, formal concepts (Brown et al., 1989).The context in which learning takes place is thus regarded as merely ancillary to learning – pedagogically useful of course, but fundamentally distinct and even neutral with respect to what is learned (Brown et al., 1989). More recently, the convergence of ICTs transformed society in the last quarter of the 20th century. This new Information Society is characterised by an unprecedented information explosion. As Petruk (1989) states: ‘frequent colourful quotes dramatise the exponential growth of new information that our society is generating each year’.The result of this rapidly increasing and changing information has been a proliferation of different media for its communication. The impact on educational institutions has been dramatic. As Waitley and Tucker (1989) point out, until very recently ‘what was learned in school was all the student really needed to learn’.The graduate after leaving the educational system could rely upon that knowledge for the rest of her or his life. Storing information and being able to recall it was central to the mission of formal education.Technological evolution and change occurred at a relatively slow rate and, as further noted by Petruk (1989), direct access to information, primarily books, was relatively limited. Conversely, as highlighted by Grabinger and Dunlap (1995), learning how to think critically and to analyse and synthesise information to solve technical, social, economic, political and scientific problems is crucial for successful and fulfilling participation in a modern, competitive society.Today, knowledge expands exponentially


and is no longer static in nature. Information is no longer simply organised, stored and made available by transference as proposed by the behaviourists. In fact, successful individuals in this continuously and fast-changing society must be creative and flexible problem solvers (Nunes and McPherson, 2002c). These are characteristics based on knowledge construction skills and not simply gathering and memorising skills (Grabinger and Dunlap, 1995). Consequently, as the flood of information continues to inundate modern society, educational objectives are changing. As stressed by Viau (1994), since information has become a dynamically changing, random access flood, it does not help to try simply to learn about it: today’s students must learn how to shape it. That is, students need to be able to select and transform information as our forebears selected and transformed wood and clay. These emergent learning needs point out to a return to the apprenticeship model, where students learn how to learn, how to think and how to solve problems embedded in a wider functional context, i.e. learning by doing.This cognitive apprenticeship approach (Brown et al., 1989; Collins et al., 1989; Simons, 1993; Honebein et al., 1993) proposes a paradigm shift in education and instruction. Rather then promote the mere acquisition and memorisation of facts and abstract concepts and theories, instruction now means improving the abilities of self-regulation of learning, thinking, intelligence and problem solving (Simons, 1993). Education assumes its modern meaning, as defined by Banathy (1991): ‘a human activity system that provides arrangements, opportunities, and resources for learning and human development’. The cognitive apprenticeship model follows the emergent epistemology of learning and understanding known as constructivism (Honebein et al., 1993). Surprisingly, this broader theory of learning is not a new perspective.Actually, at the same time Skinner was proposing and demonstrating his ideas, another American philosopher and educational psychologist, John Dewey, was developing a very different philosophy of education, now known as the constructivist approach. Dewey described learning as an active individual process, not something done to someone, but rather something that a person does (Kuhlthau, 1993). He coined the concept of ‘learning by doing’, where learning takes place within the context of a whole experience in which the learner is completely engaged, and results from the combination of acting and reflecting on the consequences: reflective experience and reflective thinking.Therefore, learning is seen as a continuous process of reflective experience in which a person is actively constructing her/his own view of the world. As stated above, educational designers call on their prior perceptions of knowledge acquisition as well as their prior educational experiences when developing their applications.These previous experiences play a central role in specifying the structure, contents and pedagogical strategies of the learning environment. In fact, most online learning developers reproduce into their applications – deliberately or accidentally – the traditional classroom approach as they experienced it. This is often based on the behaviourist model that characterised their own education. In the earliest attempts at computer-based instruction (CBI), designers treated knowledge as a ‘fluid’, which was poured into the ‘student-vessels’ (Kaye, 1989) – a learning theory that does not match the modern pedagogical thinking behind

Pedagogical models

41

current educational settings. In fact, recent adjustments in education denote paradigm shifts both in educational psychology and epistemology of learning.Thus, this rigid connotation of knowledge transmission causes a corresponding ‘rigidness’ with regard to the educational uses of these applications (Zucchermaglio, 1993). One focus of online learning research is to support learning at a HE level while avoiding the rigidness identified by Zucchermaglio (1993).Therefore, it is important to clearly characterise academic learning before engaging in online learning environment design and development.

Academic learning characterisation Defining academic learning is somewhat problematic. In general terms it can be seen as a series of activities that promote acquisition of high-level knowledge. However, both the nature of knowledge and the way this knowledge is to be acquired are changing due to the impacts of today’s information society. The European Commission Study Group on Education and Training (1997:26) considered that the exponential development of new information technologies (IT) would lead to profound transformations in education and training.This study group foresaw that a new paradigm would overturn educational processes and methods, educational actors’ roles and positions, and even the very concept of education.While this has not really transpired, there are clear signs and indications that some of these changes are taking place. More importantly, the European Commission Study Group on Education and Training (1997:26) identified the need for a transition from objective to constructed knowledge. Consequently, the study group (1997:72) considered that HE institutions should focus on developing problem-solving skills and social–communicative competencies. This has been supported at a national level by the UK White Paper on the Future of Higher Education, where it is clearly stated that new models of education imply ‘a fundamental shift from the “once in a lifetime” approach to higher education to one of educational progression linked to a process of continuous personal and professional development’ (Secretary of State for Education and Skills, 2003:16). Therefore, learning in HE must be assumed to be much more then the acquisition of inert and abstract concepts (e.g. decontextualised definitions, algorithms and routines) which are of no use if the learner does not have the understanding to apply them in appropriate settings. The aim in HE must be to develop the learner’s critical faculties, understanding and independence of thought in addition to the gathering of concepts (Anderson, 1997). This view of academic learning implies the rejection of the classical tradition of transferring some body of knowledge in the form of unchangeable and authoritarian ideas, concepts or definitions to the learner, as defended by the objectivist school of thought. According to this objectivist view, concepts are considered external to the learner and received through a process of communication. This


process focuses on behaviour and its modifications, rather than on cognitive or mental processes that facilitate learning (e.g. constructing, reflecting or planning). This objectivist view of learning was developed and defended by the behaviourist school of thought and prevails even today in many universities. As discussed above, behaviourist theories of learning do not attempt to account for any mental processes that occur in learning, the emphasis being on what the learner does in response to the knowledge transferred into her/him and passively accepted. Consequently, this view of learning embodies a strongly individualistic conception of learning, in the sense that the individual behaviour is modified due to presentation of stimuli from the learning environment. Behaviourism embodies a model of the learner as a solitary striver for understanding (Jones and Mercer, 1993) and acquisition of knowledge as an abstract Platonic form (Laurillard, 1993:15). Laurillard (1993:16–18) proposed a different view of academic learning, more compatible with the recommendations of the EC Study Group (1997), the UK White Paper (2003) and what learners actually experience in university environments nowadays. This definition is rooted on the following two main characteristics for academic learning: ● ●

Academic learning must be situated in the domain of the subject matter, the activities must match the complexity of that domain. Academic learning must contain both direct experience of the world and the reflection on that experience that will produce the intended way of representing it.

Therefore, academic learning is assumed to be much more than a mere process of passive reception and acquisition of knowledge. The way learners handle knowledge is what really concerns academics (Laurillard, 1993:16). Knowledge has a contextualised character, which means that it cannot be separated from the situations in which it is used.When learning occurs in isolation it remains inert, that is, the learner has the information available in memory, but never recognises when it is relevant (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University, 1991). Acquisition of concepts is of no use if the learner cannot apply those concepts and transfer knowledge across different settings (Nunes, 1999). In sum, academic learning involves the acquisition of high-level skills of critical thinking and problem solving in addition to the gathering of facts and concepts. Academic learning consists of a process of construction of knowledge and the development of reflexive awareness, where the individual is an active processor of information. Learning occurs through interaction with rich learning environments, and results from engaging in authentic activities, and social interaction and negotiation.This view of learning reflects the constructivist learning theory.

Constructivism The constructivist school of thought holds that ‘knowledge of the world is not a simple reflection of what there is, but a set of social artefacts; a reflection of what

Pedagogical models

43

we make of what is there’ (Schwandt, 1997). In other words, there is a meaning that learners attach to newly acquired knowledge in association with experiences of the environment in which the learner is a part (Jonassen, 1990). The theory of constructivism stems from the field of cognitive science, particularly from the works of Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, Howard Gardner and Nelson Goodman. It describes the development of knowledge through learning as a process of active construction of meanings in relation to the context and environment in which learning takes place.A learner’s understanding of a subject is embedded in the experience of that individual (Brown et al., 1989). Constructivism proposes that knowledge or meaning is not fixed for an object, but rather is constructed by individuals through their experience of that object in a particular context. (Duffy et al., 1993:2) Basic constructivism relies on the use of prior knowledge in the construction of new meanings. Previously constructed structures of knowledge are retrieved and utilised as discrete packets for the development of new knowledge structures. Spiro et al. (1991) took this basic theory of constructivism a step further. They argue that a new element of the constructive process must be added to those that are already recognised.That new element is the use of pre-existing knowledge in the active construction of new knowledge. The pre-existing knowledge is brought together from diverse areas of understanding and reassembled into knowledge structures that can be used to interpret and construct new meanings from the new situation presented. This process of knowledge construction by imposing meaning to learning experiences reflects the basis of the constructivist epistemology. In the literature, constructivism is almost always discussed in opposition to the well-established behaviourist philosophy. The behaviourist approach advocates behaviours and skills as the goals of instruction. Constructivism defends concept development and deep understanding as the objectives.Thus, these are understood as constructions of active learner reorganisation (Fosnot, 1996). In fact, to discuss and characterise either behaviourism or constructivism nowadays is not an easy task.This is mainly because of, as noted by Reigeluth (1992), the excessive ideological fervour, bordering on evangelism, that characterises some of the authors who advocate constructivism. All other perspectives are rejected as ‘heresy’ (Reigeluth, 1992) and behaviourism in particular has become a pejorative label given by constructivists to the offending ‘others’ (Molenda, 1991). Consequently, very few in the educational technology field would admit to being either behaviourist or objectivist any more (Wilson, 1993). However, the old concepts, methods and attitudes still prevail and many so-called constructivist environments revert to objectivism (Allen, 1992). This creates additional difficulties when trying to understand and characterise the different uses of these opposite approaches.


Nevertheless, the behaviourist/constructivist debate cannot be reduced to a simple dichotomy. In reality, as stated by Jonassen (1992), behaviourism and constructivism should be seen as polar extremes of a continuum in order to contrast their assumptions. Hence, very few people hold radical positions of either persuasion, and probably neither side is absolutely right (Wilson, 1993). Moreover, and as proposed by Allen (1992), both perspectives share a vision of education where the role of instruction is to help students to learn about the world they live in. However, objectivism and constructivism differ in their basic set of notions as to how learners perceive the world: the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge, the nature of human interaction and the nature of science (Wilson, 1993).These are the set of principles that form the epistemological basis of both theories.Therefore, these are the notions that are used in the next three sections to characterise constructivism and are used in the remainder of this book to analyse the implications of these theories for the design of online learning environments.

The nature of knowledge and reality Modern constructivists believe that knowledge is personally constructed from internal representations, which are in turn developed using prior knowledge as a foundation. Prior knowledge that is brought to bear is itself constructed, rather than retrieved intact from memory, on a case-by-case basis (Spiro et al., 1991). Hence, knowledge is based upon individual constructions that are not tied to any external reality, but rather to the knower’s interactions with the external world (Jonassen, 1990). Therefore, meaning is imposed on the world by the individual. There are many ways to structure the world and there are many meanings or perspectives for any event or concept (Duffy and Jonassen, 1992). In other words, reality is to a degree what the individual conceives it to be (Jonassen, 1990). Consequently, meaning is seen as rooted in, and indexed by, experience (Brown et al., 1989). Experience includes not only the physical context in which the learner acts, but also both the cognitive and the physical tasks that the learner engages with while the experience is taking place (Honebein et al., 1993). However, since knowledge is indexed to the experience from which it was acquired, the context that characterises it is a significant determinant of what is learned and how it is organised in memory. In fact, as Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) theorise, there are two kinds of link that need to be developed during the learning activity: internal and external. Internal associations reflect the learner’s understanding of a concept, whereas external associations comprise connections between the concept and the context. The usability of a constructed concept in the future will depend on these external associations. The fact that learners must acquire knowledge in ways that will help them use it in similar situations in the future, has two major consequences: ●

Learning activities must be ‘authentic activities’, which must be embedded in realistic and relevant contexts (situated learning).

Pedagogical models ●

45

Learners must be provided with the opportunity to explore multiple perspectives on an issue, that is, one activity is not enough to acquire a comprehensive view of a particular concept.

Situated learning raises another important issue in constructivist learning, that is, the way an individual learns, and the cognitive resources which are called upon, depend on the nature of the learning situation and previous learning activities (Hammond, 1993). Any learning activity in a particular domain is framed by its culture (Brown et al., 1989). Meaning and purpose are socially constructed through negotiations among present and past members of that society. That is, learning happens in a social context and conceptual growth comes from sharing of perspectives and testing of ideas with others. Learning, in the sense of reaching common understandings and shared meanings, results from social interaction and negotiation with peers and teachers (Grabinger and Dunlap, 1995).

The nature of human interaction The central point of constructivism is that knowledge does not exist independently in the world. Hence, any situation can be understood from many perspectives and there is not a correct meaning to strive for (Duffy and Jonassen, 1992). However, as pointed out by Jonassen et al. (1992), individual experiences, perceptions and constructions do not mean that it is impossible for individuals to construct essentially the same understanding for any object or event in the external world. Therefore, the process of social negotiation becomes of paramount importance. The construction of knowledge by individual learners is based on the processes of interaction with peers, facilitators and experts. Conceptions and ideas are compared, confronted and discussed through this interaction. In the process, all actors modify their views to finally achieve a common understanding. According to Bates (1991), there are basically two very different types of interactivity. The first is an individual, private activity between the learner and the learning materials, which may range from the traditional textbook to computerbased simulations.The second is a social activity between the learner and the tutor, the facilitator or other learners. Private interaction with the learning and conceptual materials is expected to promote learning by provoking cognitive restructuring (Shulman and Ringstaff, 1986). Cognitive restructuring occurs as learners revise their ways of thinking when faced with discrepancies between their own view of the world and new information (Rogoff, 1990:137–40). Social interaction with tutors and facilitators is expected to promote development through the guidance of people skilled in solving the problems emerging from the learning activities (Rogoff, 1990:137140). Social interaction with the learner’s peers is expected to promote learning by joint problem solving and the negotiation of meaning by partners working with independence and equality on each other’s ideas (Rogoff, 1990:137–40).


Both private and social interactivity are required in the process of social negotiation and have to be supported by the learning environment. Learning is the process of socially constructing a communal understanding, a collective, constructive social process (Zucchermaglio, 1993). Therefore, the learner must be surrounded by a rich learning environment that supports the communication and negotiation processes between members of a social community.

Rich Environments for Active Learning (REALs) The need for situated learning, social negotiation and multiple perspectives in the construction of knowledge implies that a number of different learning strategies must be adopted to assist the learner.The adoption of these strategies creates learning environments that Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) term rich environments for active learning (REALs). REALs promote learning within authentic contexts, and encourage the growth of learner responsibility, initiative, decision making, intentional learning and ownership over the acquired knowledge. Additionally, REALs should provide an atmosphere that encourages the formation of knowledgebuilding learning communities.These communities encourage collaborative social negotiation of meanings and understandings among the members of the community (peers, tutors, subject matter experts). Carr et al. (1998) propose a number of requirements for these learning environments which are rooted on the five criteria expressed by Grabinger and Dunlap (1995): student responsibility and initiative; generative learning activities; authentic learning contexts; authentic assessment strategies; and cooperative support. According to Carr et al. (1998), the requirements to support these attributes are: ● ●

●

● ● ●

Provide support for active learning – learners are active because knowledge is permanently being constructed through interaction with the environment. Provide authentic, real-world learning experiences – knowledge that is taken out of context during instruction is not authentic, so learning must be supported by means of real-world activities. Provide multiple perspectives – although reality is constructed by each individual, the process of learning is the consequence of the interaction with multiple information sources (e.g. experiences, conceptual materials, teachers, peers and authors). Provide support for communication and social negotiation. Provide support for collaboration, not competition. Focus control at the learner level – since learners are expected to be active, learning in context and collaborating with other learners and the instructor, they are more in control of their learning.

As observed by Jonassen (1995), most constructivist learning environments, including cognitive flexibility hypertexts (Spiro and Jeng, 1990), anchored instruction

Pedagogical models

47

(Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992), goal-based scenarios (Schank et al., 1994), and causally modelled diagnostic cases (Jonassen, 1996), share a common goal: the construction of advanced knowledge by learners that will support complex performance, such as problem solving and transfer of learning. These environments stress situated problem-solving skills, because that is the nature of skills that are required and rewarded in the real world. In most professions, people are paid to solve problems, not to memorise information (Jonassen, 1995). To sum up, academic learning should be seen as a constructivist process, i.e. a process of acting upon what has been learnt and reflecting upon that learning and doing to contextualise the knowledge gained. By acting and reflecting upon the knowledge acquired, learners construct their own views of the world in relation to that new knowledge and put it into a useful context.This differentiates them from the passive learner, who soaks up information without applying it and then never knows when it is appropriate to use it (Linn, 1996).Without a context in which to place what has been learnt, newly acquired knowledge becomes meaningless and irrelevant. It is thus important to provide environments for students in which they may contextualise the information they are taught during lectures and/or tutorials.This should enable them to develop a deeper knowledge of the subject under study, which will be retained for longer.

Epistemology versus pedagogical models Establishing the nature of academic learning and finding a compatible learning theory is not enough to support the actual design and development of online learning environments. Action research into the design and development of these environments requires explicit and clear pedagogical models that can be translated from theory into practice. In fact, a designer, faced solely with constructivism as a learning theory, would have difficulty in translating this into an appropriate conceptual model, and ultimately in developing a pure constructivist online learning environment. As clearly stated by Wilson, (1993),‘constructivism is a philosophy not a strategy’. Fosnot (1996) rationalises this by clearly stating that constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning (an epistemology), not a theory of teaching: Constructivism is a theory about learning, not a description of teaching. No ‘cookbook teaching style’ or pat set of instructional techniques can be abstracted from the theory and proposed as a constructivist approach to teaching. Some general principles of learning derived from constructivism may be helpful to keep in mind, however, as we rethink and reform our educational practices. (Fosnot, 1996)


However, this ‘cookbook teaching style’ – a precise pedagogical model – is exactly what is required by educational designers to develop appropriate conceptual models to support academic learning. However, the difficulty with the term ‘pedagogical model’ is that it is commonly used but seldom precisely defined. A pedagogical model is a theoretical construct that can be used by practitioners as a framework for understanding educational action using a specific learning theory. According to Goodyear (1999), these models allow action researchers and educationalists to engage in more powerful and robust reasoning about what needs to be done and achieved. Goodyear (1999) goes on to say, ‘all educational interventions can be seen as unique – but they can also be seen as variations on common themes’. This common theme is often the pedagogical model. In order to support educational research in general, and action research in particular, these pedagogical models need to help identify ‘ways of describing the real-world, concrete activities, processes, people and artefacts involved in a learning activity’ (Goodyear, 1999).Therefore, and as represented in the EMAR model (Figure 2.5), a pedagogical model should include not only a clear definition of the learning philosophy, but also characterisation of learning models compatible with this, a specific pedagogical strategy and the corresponding pedagogical tactics conducive to achieving the goals established by the strategy. The pedagogical model presented in the Case Study Box that follows was developed using action research, supported by the EMAR framework. It provides an interpretive structure for making sense of both constructivism and academic learning, and allowed educationalists and designers to concentrate on their respective tasks in ways that would not otherwise have been possible. Having established an appropriate pedagogical model, action researchers and designers need to consider how to translate this into the design and development of online learning environments. In fact, the detail of specification required and the complexities of integration of the different ICT components demand methodologies akin to information systems design and development, traditionally denominated Instructional Systems Design (ISD) methodologies. The next chapter will discuss this in detail.

Pedagogical models

The MA in ITM Case Study Pedagogical strategy and model The use of the World Wide Web in CPDE courses has been seen as the most recent educational panacea (Ausserhofer, 1999) for providing adult students with transferable skills such as online communication and discussion, negotiation of meanings, critical thinking and problem-solving abilities (Bowskill, 1998).The web has been further promoted by the resurgence of educational approaches and epistemologies such as constructivism and problem-based learning. The connection of these technologies and learning theories seems to have been identified as a possible way of implementing distance education courses to help foster and promote the aforementioned skills and the participation to professionals working full time. According to French et al. (1999), web-based distance learning offers professionals, who may otherwise find it difficult to attend programmes of study or conferences, the opportunity to gain indispensable continuing professional development.This is just one of the benefits of moving the delivery of distance education courses from paper-based documents to the web (Bennett, 2000). Indeed, the UK’s University for Industry (UfI) includes the exploitation of ‘technology in the delivery and creation of learning experiences so that they can be accessed conveniently’ as part of its strategy statement (University for Industry, 2000). Responding to this complex conjunction of demands, the Department of Information Studies (DIS) at the University of Sheffield has developed CPDE programmes of study, in addition to offering a range of traditional on-campus programmes covering the areas of information management, information systems and librarianship. The MA in ITM was developed along a slightly different route. In fact, this course was initially designed, developed and run by the Division of Adult Continuing Education. After a process of restructuring of this division, this course was transferred to DIS. Up to this point the MA in ITM did not require access to online facilities and relied solely on paper-based materials and supporting face-to-face (f2f) day schools, as discussed in Chapter 2. However, as a consequence of the PC boom and the rapid development of the web, the course team was soon under pressure to incorporate aspects of online learning into the course delivery. The opportunity to introduce an ICT component into the MA in ITM arose when the university decided to adopt web course tools (WebCT) as its virtual learning environment (VLE). WebCT adopts a virtual classroom metaphor, composed by a number of ICT tools, which allow educators to build online collaborative learning environments.

49


The change process: from traditional to online distance education The MA in ITM developed and used the Educational Management Action Research (EMAR) model to facilitate action research into the course’s evolutionary process. This process has now been completed, with all materials and student support being undertaken through online learning. Consequently, all students are required to make use of online Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Rather then simply replacing paper-based materials by web pages, the current setting for each MA in ITM module offers: the corresponding and continuously revised course materials in portable document format (PDF); additional web-based materials and links; all module-related administrative and organisational information; all problem-based learning materials and case study notes; both synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools; and private group discussion and presentation areas. In order to develop the online learning environments for the different ITM modules with a certain degree of homogeneity and according to an agreed and sound pedagogical approach, it was necessary to find a suitable pedagogical model.This model then became part of the EMAR framework for the course and therefore informed and supported practice. At the same time, this pedagogical model was repeatedly improved by that same practice.

The ITM CPDE pedagogical model Traditional pedagogical models for CPDE have been researched quite extensively, resulting in various propositions from Keegan (1993:95), Wild (1994) and Smith (1994), among others. Similarly, online learning educational settings have also been the object of numerous studies funded nationally and internationally. Therefore, action planning and action taking in online learning can be well supported by accumulated theory and practice. However, due to the pace of developments in the field, online learning models need constant review and improvement. It is important to make a distinction between general pedagogical models and implementation models. Pedagogical models are based on general philosophies and epistemological assumptions that are aimed at supporting educationalists and tutors in thinking, designing and preparing their courses. Implementation models aim at facilitating the application of these models in particular contexts and settings (Nunes and McPherson, 2002a). Pedagogical models tend to be more persistent, whereas implementation models have to respond to changes in context, technology and learner profile. The pedagogical model proposed in Figure 3.1 is based on Keegan’s (1993) six main features that characterise CPDE in general, and which are also intrinsic to the MA in ITM:

Pedagogical models

●

●

●

●

●

●

Tutors and students are geographically dispersed – indeed, some MA in ITM students are even located in other countries such as Norway, Sweden, Greece or Malta. Learning resources and materials are produced and maintained by an accredited educational institution – in this case, the University of Sheffield. Communication, dissemination of information and often pastoral advice are enabled by educational ICT – the MA in ITM uses both email and WebCT. Two-way communication between learners and tutors must be assured – the MA in ITM uses group work, case studies and role play to encourage student interaction. Face-to-face seminars, workshops and day schools are often incorporated into the programme – each MA in ITM cohort undertakes an induction workshop, followed by four day schools per year. There is influence, participation and sometimes partnership with industry – in the MA in ITM course, dissertations are work-related. This allows students to contextualise and use in practice the theoretical knowledge acquired during the taught part of the programme.

Furthermore, most CPDE students are adult learners, often taking these courses in parallel with their professional activities, as stated in one response to an evaluation study on course components:‘We are full-time professionals and part-time students’ VSS.Q15. These students approach the course with clear objectives and well-identified learning needs, as confirmed by studies that state that an estimated 70 per cent of adult learning is self-directed (Cross, 1981). Self-directed learning has been described as ‘a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others’, to diagnose their learning needs, formulate learning goals, identify resources for learning, select and implement learning strategies, and evaluate learning outcomes (Knowles, 1975). Moreover, most CPDE learners are attempting to gain new skills, knowledge and attitudes to improve their work performance (Lowry, 1989). The challenge for environments supporting self-directed learning is to allow learners to work on authentic problems and tasks of their own choosing, and yet still provide them with learning support contextualised to their chosen subject matter (Fischer and Scharff, 1998). Thus, and as proposed by Nunes and McPherson (2002a), online learning CPDE pedagogical models are usually based on the following premises: ● ●

the delivery mode is based on online distance education; the target audience are adult and independent learners;

51


● ●

the students are full-time workers with professional experience in their field; the aim of such course is threefold – to provide subject matter expertise; to enable the acquisition of problem-solving skills and professional attitudes; and to provide students with transferable skills in life-long learning.

According to the aims and characteristics above, the pedagogical model developed for the MA in ITM and proposed in Figure 3.1 is based on a constructivist approach, which implies the following assumptions: ●

●

●

●

●

Learning involves an active process of construction by the learners at both individual and social levels, rather than the passive reception of knowledge – the course is not only composed of a set of explicit materials, but includes a number of exercises, reflective tasks and problemsolving case studies, carried out at both individual and group levels. The role of the tutor is that of a facilitator who supports independent engagement in the process of construction through scaffolding and the provision of advanced organisers into the learning environment – for instance, in day schools, students are assigned different roles for the analysis of case studies, which result in the discussion of different perspectives on the same problem. The role of the tutor in these case studies is to introduce them and to facilitate discussion, rather than to lead students to set responses. Collaboration and peer support relationships are essential features in order to enable engagement in dialogue, exploration of multiple perspectives, exchange of experience, ideas and feedback, and overcome isolation. Learning activities must be authentic and situated within a real context if learning and skills are to be transferred easily into other contexts – most of the case studies and problem-solving exercises are based on authentic scenarios and encourage students to make use of their own professional experience. Programme and module design should engage with learners’ individual experiences and encourage ownership of, and motivation to learning.

The CPDE pedagogical model in Figure 3.1 presupposes that the student engages with module notes and materials on an individual basis, and applies and negotiates the meaning of the theoretical concepts with his peers through situated activities, such as case studies, simulations or role plays.The tutor/facilitator provides scaffolding, for individual and group learning, as well as expert and pastoral support. Pastoral support is particularly important in distance education to overcome problems of isolation, overloads due to

Pedagogical models

the combination of work and studies, etc. Additionally, if a course online community is formed, there is the opportunity for peer support and online socialising. The pedagogical model proposed was developed as a generic CPDE model, bearing in mind the fields of management and information studies. It requires implementation within a specific educational setting, taking into account the nature of the programme, the subject matter, the profile of the learners, the support facilities and educational technology available. Therefore, there is the need to create an implementation model that applies the pedagogical model proposed within the specific educational setting. That was the next step in the MA in ITM action research change project. Explicit learning materials • Course materials Learning activities • Individual learning activities •

Group learning activities

•

Assessed activities

•

Case studies

•

Links to relevant web sites

Virtual Learning Environment

Self-reflection Individual construction of knowledge

Social negotiation, collaboration, co operationTutoring, scaffolding and pastoral support

Peer support, socialisation

The tutor

The learner

The peers

Figure 3.1 The CPDE pedagogical model

53

Chapter 4

Design and development of online learning environments As discussed in earlier chapters, this book proposes and defends the idea that the design of online learning environments should be based upon a sound pedagogical model, appropriate to a specific educational scenario, thus allowing for the understanding of the different aspects of the subject matter at different levels of abstraction. However, pedagogical models are only conceptual representations. Design of online learning environments, which usually involves a complex technical component, requires a more systematic development methodology to translate those pedagogical models into the reality of practice. Such a methodology consists of a collection of procedures, techniques, tools and documentation aids that help developers in their efforts to implement a new learning environment (Nunes, 1999).The aim of such methodologies is to build systems that are robust, reliable, efficient, portable, modifiable and maintainable (Hickman et al., 1989). Furthermore, these methodologies, in attempting to make effective use of IT, also make effective use of the techniques and tools available. Appropriate methodologies for online environments are similar to the ones used for information systems (IS) in general. Information systems are concerned with balancing technical specialisms with organisation and task specialisms (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1993:9). Learning environments as a form of educational system pose the additional challenge of having to incorporate specific pedagogical models and support corresponding modes of delivery.

54


55

In general, IS methodologies must enable user participation and validation. An IS development methodology includes not only those methods and techniques which assist and support the activities necessary to produce the system (analysis, specification, design, implementation, operation and maintenance), but also management procedures to control the deployment of resources and communication between all the agents involved. This methodological approach is of paramount importance in educational applications, since it ensures integration of all the stakeholders involved in the process: educationalists, content matter specialists, designers and programmers, graphic designers and audio-visual production teams, and even the students themselves. Since the aim is to produce educational applications, educationalists and designers must interact in an integrated and systematic manner, making use of an appropriate framework. Hence, an educational systems design methodology must integrate the contributions of both educationalists, who will be primarily responsible for the curriculum design, and developers, who will oversee the application design and development. Such a methodology must, in its first stage, establish the educational requirements for the particular subject matter and then, in a second stage, develop the application according to the educational specifications.

Conceptual models in information systems design Since not all educationalists involved in developing online learning environments come from an IS background, it may be helpful to revisit IS development methodologies. These are usually conceived as having a particular philosophy or conceptual view of what constitutes a software (SW) application, of its general purpose and future usage, and how it should be structured and designed. In fact, all system developers approach the development task with a number of explicit and implicit assumptions about the nature of human organisations, the nature of the design task, the value of the technology and what is expected of them (Hirschheim et al., 1995:46). These assumptions are usually embedded in the development methodology and are usually based on some philosophical view, otherwise the methodology is merely a method (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1993:4). Methodologies are not just recipes. They include concepts and beliefs that define the content and behaviour of the intended systems, as well as values that state what properties in the systems are good and desirable (Hirschheim et al., 1995:22). These philosophical foundations and conceptual models determine much of the final structure of the development methodology and the architecture of the application itself. In fact, in educational systems methodologies these conceptual models become even more important, since they become the vehicle for designers to show the educationalists and subject matter experts involved in the project how they should conceive the intended system (Jonassen, 1995). Moreover, in learning settings these models may also be provided to the learners in order to improve conceptual retention, reduce verbatim recall and improve problem-solving transfer (Mayer,


1989). According to Jonassen (1995), showing the learner how ideas are interconnected in the form of concrete models enhances the learner’s cognitive models of the content being studied. Given the complexity and the ambiguity of some of its core concepts, it is not surprising that within the field of IS there are multiple concerns and approaches which do not easily relate to each other, and to the whole. In truth, different philosophical foundations and conceptual models have influenced the way IS applications are perceived ever since the first methodologies appeared. The hierarchical database model allied to the data flow-oriented analysis led to the structured methodology proposed by DeMarco (1978). Later, the adoption of the topdown functional philosophy determined the structured development methodology (SDM) of Yourdon and Constantine (1978). Conversely, the entity model, as proposed by Codd (1970), resulted in data-oriented analysis in organisations and is the foundation of the entire modern database field.The integration of data flow analysis and the entity model resulted in the structured system analysis and design methodology (SSADM) as presented by Cutts (1991). More significantly, the relatively recent adoption of the object-oriented approach resulted in a total revolution in the way analysts, designers and developers view their systems. Efforts were made to incorporate this new conceptual model by adapting the old methodologies, such as the object-oriented SSADM version proposed by Robinson and Berrisford (1994). However, the reality of practice has shown that the adoption of this new philosophy required entirely new methodologies such as the development heuristic proposed by Coad and Yourdon (1991) or the most recent object management group (OMG) standard, the Unified Modelling Language (UML) proposed by Booch et al. (1998). In particular cases, the adoption of this new conceptual model even implies the adoption of new ways of viewing and understanding the world, such as the information model proposed by Shlaer and Mellor (1988). This model is based on objects, attributes of these objects and relations between objects. The domain of the application is modelled around data object entities, where objects are abstractions of set real-world entities. All the methodologies discussed above are general purpose software engineering methodologies. However, these universal methodologies appear to lack some features that are essential to support the development of more specific applications, such as, for instance, knowledge-based systems (KBS). KBS deal with problem solving and problem-solving heuristics. Hickman et al. (1989) state that, even if it is possible to assign entities to parts of a problem-solving process, it is very difficult to assign attributes to these entities. Thus, these authors assert that data is not knowledge and that techniques and methods designed to tackle data processing are not adequate to support KBS. Hickman et al. (1989) propose a KBS-oriented prototyping methodology: KADS. Similarly, hypermedia designers also felt the need to develop methods and techniques to deal with the particular problems posed by the hypermedia philosophy. Howell (1992), for instance, suggests a user-oriented rapid prototyping methodology adapted to the hypermedia characteristics. Some authors go even further, and argue that specific types of applications of hypermedia need specific development


57

methodologies. Martin (1990) proposes the hypertextbook model as the conceptual model to develop special hypermedia applications he coins hyperdocuments. Using this model he presents a design methodology based on diagrammatic representations of cross-linked hierarchical structures. The hypertextbook remains the generally used conceptual model for the overwhelming majority of hypermedia applications. In fact, this need for specialisation and adaptation of general-purpose methodologies has also been gradually accepted among educational systems designers. As stated above, the development of modern educational systems requires methodologies that allow real cooperation between the two most important agents usually involved in the process, i.e. educationalists and technologists.Therefore, a new IS discipline is emerging – educational informatics.This new field, while using methods mainly applied by educationalists with an educational point of view, cannot be purely educational because the aim is to develop ICT supported online learning environments (Nodenot, 1992). Hence, educational informatics methodologies differ from other IS and software engineering methodologies, in that they are based on a conceptual model, which incorporates specification of the educational philosophy and pedagogic requirements.

Educational systems design methodologies The general concept of educational systems design (ESD) methodologies is not strictly new. However, the evolution of conceptual and pedagogical models has significantly changed how educational systems are perceived, used and evaluated. Consequently, ESD has evolved accordingly. Early ESD, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, was almost exclusively based upon the use of authoring languages, which were mostly hardware (HW) specific, such as Control Data Corporation’s Tutor for the PLATO system. These early authoring languages were characterised by an assembler-like syntax that could even include low-level control over peripherals and graphics. Therefore, the production of educational applications required fairly skilled programmers. Educational systems were synonymous with computer-based instruction (CBI) and reflected the use of the computer in providing instructional sequences followed by drill and practice exercises. These early educational applications were still called programs and were, in fact, not very different in nature from other types of software. Consequently, early ESD guidelines centred on technical problems common in software, such as program control and structure. Following this trend, authors such as Pointeer (1985) centred their design considerations on the structure of the program, leaving out any explicit pedagogic component altogether. These authors’ main design concern was to choose between three structure possibilities: sequential, command or menu. Although ESD was developed using a team approach right from the beginning, there were always difficult problems in communication between the two main groups involved, educationalists and developers, as reported by Moonen (1986).


Furthermore, the approach to the design and development of teaching was largely dominated by behaviourist thinking (as discussed in Chapter 3), giving rise to a widely accepted, mechanistic view of educational technology (EdT) in general (Melton, 1990) and educational systems in particular. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the prevalent belief among educationalists was still that efficient and effective teaching was dependent on learning objectives being expressed in unambiguous behavioural terms and on teaching being designed to help and guide students to achieve specified objectives.Thus, the participation of educationalists was restricted to the first stages of the design process and this behaviourist pedagogical model was the basis for early design and development methodologies. However, this was not an explicitly represented model and consequently educational requirements and concerns were not properly monitored. Authors such as Criswell (1989) soon acknowledged the need for a clear representation of the learning process, through explicit adoption of an appropriate conceptual model as basis for their methodologies. Criswell (1989) adopts and defends the traditional behaviourist approach and accordingly presents a very traditional model of computer-based instruction (CBI). His conventional frame-based solution envisaged a program that provided instruction frame by frame in a relatively fixed sequence, building up remedial loops, reviews and drill and practice reinforcement. He constructed a thorough and very well structured design methodology based on this model. Hannafin and Peck (1988) acknowledged the claims of the cognitivist learning theory, revealing concerns with long-term memorisation, meaningfulness of information, affective considerations, learning processes and learning strategies. As a result, they adopted the term computer-assisted instruction (CAI), which reflected the fact that computer technology was no longer considered the only – or even the main – vehicle for instruction. This CAI model was a refined CBI model, which was based both on behaviourist and cognitive psychology principles. Additionally, it also included some principles drawn from the crossing of behavioural and cognitive boundaries. Based on this CAI conceptual model, Hannafin and Peck (1988) presented what they call the CAI design model (CDM), which is a structured ESD methodology, organising the design activities into four phases: needs assessment, design, implementation, and evaluation and revision. Nevertheless, this conceptual model still revealed a sequential, rigid and highly teacher-centred approach to ESD. By the late 1980s, a second generation of authoring languages emerged as a result of the micro-computer revolution. These authoring tools, most of them using hypermedia platforms, were characterised by the development of facilities specifically designed for handling the major functions required in the authoring process, such as text formatting, graphics and screen design, pre-defined templates, or even the possibility of defining instructional sequence as a flow chart. The emergence of these second-generation authorware systems allowed educationalists to become increasingly involved in the development process. Later in the 1990s, the rapid expansion of the web led to the development of integrated


59

online learning environment shells known as virtual learning environments (VLE) (McPherson and Nunes, 2001). These VLEs are becoming commonly used as tools to design and develop online educational environments, employing a common interface to integrate development tools and course management tools. This new generation of VLEs (e.g.WebCT, Blackboard, Luvit, First Class, etc.) provides features that allow educationalists to adopt more constructivist designs in accordance with learning outcomes and the three essential types of communication and interaction: student with learning materials; student with tutors; student with other students. Additionally,VLEs provide a set of online management tools that assist tutors in designing courses as well as keeping track of student activity and progress, monitoring factors such as student visits to the learning environment; student participation in online activities; student feedback about the learning experience; student support and scaffolding; student attitudes about learning through distance education; overall student satisfaction towards distance learning; and student outcomes such as grades and test scores.These VLEs can be used to create entire online courses, or simply be used to publish materials that supplement existing courses. Due to the increasingly comprehensive and easy to use authoring facilities of the modern VLEs, the gap between expert and non-expert/professional and nonprofessional developer is narrowing. In truth, modern authoring tools aim at supporting both professional quality and ‘do-it-yourself ’ endeavours (Nunes and Fowell, 1996a). Thus, the developer of an online learning application could ultimately be the educationalist him/herself, without resorting to professional help. In any case, the need for an adequate ESD approach will always be present due to the aforementioned technical dimension of this type of design (Nunes and Fowell, 1996b). Additionally, these easy to use authoring tools have led ESD methodologies to change fundamentally in nature. Most designers and developers have adopted a rapid prototyping approach, as initially advocated by Moonen (1986), in order to allow ongoing review, evaluation and revision with the full participation of educationalists and even students.This remains the most commonly used ESD approach nowadays, as defended by authors such as Barker (1989), Thomas (1994), Boyle (1997) and Nunes (1999). In summary, the development of ESD requires IS-like development methodologies that allow real cooperation between the two types of agents who should be involved in the production of online learning environments: educationalists and designers.These ESD methodologies – as any other IS methodology – can be seen as an organised collection of concepts, methods, beliefs, values and normative principles supported by educational resources. Designing an educational application is carried out according to a conceptual model, comprising the different aspects of that system at different levels of abstraction (as will be discussed more fully in Chapter 5).


The changing nature of online learning environments As discussed above,VLEs are particularly appropriate for the production of interactive and exploratory educational environments, where large numbers of links and cross-references are provided and the learner can explore her/his own interests according to previous experience, background and perspective. Additionally, VLEs provide computer-mediated communication (CMC) facilities that enable the peer-to-peer and peer-to-tutor interactions required by constructivist approaches. However,VLE applications need to be tailored to suit the particular learning tasks. In order to do this, the learning process itself must first be analysed and understood. As discussed in Chapter 3, learning is a complex process involving a large range of activities, some active, some passive, some creative, some reactive, some directed, some exploratory (Hammond, 1992). Furthermore, as previously proposed, academic learning should be seen as a process of construction of knowledge and the development of reflexive awareness, where the individual is an active processor of information. This type of learning occurs through interaction with rich learning environments, and results from engaging in authentic activities and through social interaction and negotiation (Nunes, 1999). This complexity of the learning process suggests the need for situated learning, social negotiation and multiple perspectives on the different aspects of the subject matter, the implication being that a number of different learning strategies must be adopted to assist the learner in the construction of knowledge. As discussed earlier, the adoption of these different strategies results in learning environments that Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) term rich environments for active learning (REALs). REALs promote learning within authentic contexts, and encourage the growth of learner responsibility, initiative, decision making, intentional learning and ownership over the acquired knowledge.Additionally, REALs should provide an atmosphere, which encourages the formation of knowledge building and learning communities that assist collaborative social negotiation of meanings and understandings among members (peers, tutors, and subject matter experts). In sum, as REALs, online learning environments to sustain academic learning must essentially support interactions between the tutor, the learner and her/his peers, subject matter specialists and the learning materials. Furthermore, and as defined by Nunes and Fowell (1996a) and discussed above, an online learning application is specifically produced to address a particular educational need, and is thus limited to the solution of the problems arising from that need. Consequently, this means that although the online application being designed might be linked with other web pages, hypermedia applications, software applications, databases or even CMC facilities, they have clearly established boundaries. In this sense, a VLE application is one component of a much broader learning universe – the web.


61

REALs can be seen as instructional systems, in the sense put forward by Nervig (1990): as sets of interacting, interrelated, structured experiences that are designed to achieve specific educational objectives, but organised into a unified, dynamic whole.Therefore, the design of an online learning environment should result from the design specifications that result from the process of analysing curricular and pedagogical requirements. The importance of the overall process of design rests in assuring that the whole REAL is consistently and coherently implemented using the same learning approach and mode of delivery. In fact, if not carefully planned, the REAL could result in a mix of potentially conflicting techniques from different theoretical perspectives and approaches. Accordingly, Bednar et al. (1992) defend the notion that effective instructional design and development is only possible if it emerges from deliberate application of a particular theory of learning. Furthermore, the developers must have acquired reflexive awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design.This will ensure that the overall learning environment and its individual components are compatible and all use the same learning theory philosophy. However, and as discussed above, the detail of specification required and the complexities of integration of the different ICT components demand methodologies akin to information systems design and development. These have been traditionally denominated instructional systems design (ISD) methodologies. The remainder of this chapter will propose and discuss such an educational systems design (ESD) framework to be used within the overarching action research model presented (EMAR). Since the term ‘instructional’ has strong connotations with the behaviourist school of thought and could indicate a focus on a teaching-centred approach rather then a less objectivist learner-centred view of education, the authors opted for ESD rather then ISD.

Constructivist educational systems design Traditionally, ISD was seen as a process approached from a systems strategy, based on the purpose of the system, using a systematic, subject matter-oriented process for analysing curricular and instructional problems in order to develop tested, feasible solutions (Nervig, 1990). Conversely, constructivist ESD focuses on the learner and on the learning process rather than solely on the subject matter (Nunes, 1999). Since knowledge is constructed, the learning of a concept must be embedded in the use of the concept. In the traditional ISD, the designer analyses the conditions bearing on the instructional system in preparation for the specification of intended learning outcomes (Bednar et al., 1992). Content, learner and instructional setting are analysed and the instruction is designed using the concepts of learning objectives and specification of goal outcomes. Constructivist ESD requires the separation of method and content: designers develop learning environments rather then packaged instruction (Kember, 1991). According to Lebow (1993), ESD should be carried out while bearing in mind the seven primary constructivist values: collaboration, personal autonomy,


generativity, reflectivity, active engagement, personal relevance and pluralism. From these principles Lebow (1993) draws a set of general design principles to be used in the ESD process, i.e. to: ● ● ●

● ●

make learning relevant by providing a context for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness; balance the tendency to control the learning situation with the desire to promote personal autonomy; support self-regulation through the promotion of skills and attitudes that enable the learner to assume increasing responsibility for the developmental restructuring process; increase emphasis on the affective domain of learning, treating learning and motivation as part of a unified process; strengthen the learner’s tendency to engage in intentional learning processes, especially by encouraging the strategic exploration of errors.

The ESD framework proposed in Figure 4.1, although based upon the traditional ISD model put forward by Croft (1993), was developed by Nunes (1999) according to these design principles in order to enable development based on the constructivist philosophy.This framework was then further adapted by Nunes and McPherson (2003a). It aims to allow design informed by negotiation with students and tutors, rather than design based on early interpretation of pedagogical needs and summative evaluation. Curriculum design, as discussed in Chapter 2, consists in defining the course syllabus and contents. Since according to academic learning philosophy, knowledge domains are not readily separated in the world, information from many sources bears on the analysis of any particular subject matter and it is not possible to isolate units of information (Nunes, 1999).Therefore curriculum design must define a core body of information that is central for the course, but there should be no strong delineation of what may be relevant. It is proposed that learners should emulate experts in that knowledge domain in real-life contexts.The ultimate goal is to move the learner into thinking in the knowledge domain as if she/he were an expert user of that domain (Bednar et al., 1992). Referring back to the EMAR model, the curriculum design should be established as a combination of the pedagogical model and the educational setting. The course development team should then conceive, define and design relevant teaching and learning activities to be supported by the online learning environment. Collaborative and problem-based learning activities are particularly difficult to implement since, although simplified, these still have to be authentic and realistic tasks capable of challenging the learner. Thus, the goal is to portray authentic learning activities, not to define the structure and paths of learning, which is the normal temptation for technologists. In fact, it is the process of constructing a perspective or understanding that is important and no meaningful construction is possible if all relevant information is pre-specified (Bednar et al., 1992).


63

Curriculum design

...

Other components

Reference materials

Explicit web materials

Development of the different components

CMC facilities

Student and tutor feedback

Design and specification of the learning environment

System test and field test

Installation and delivery

Figure 4.1 General Educational Systems Design (ESD) adapted from Nunes (1999) and Nunes and McPherson (2003) In sum, curriculum design is a process by which the course aims and objectives, content, delivery mode and assessment procedures are decided, taking into consideration a number of different factors (Nunes et al., 2000a) that affect the whole programme, such as: ● ● ● ●

the student and his/her knowledge about the subject; the specific nature of the subject matter; the subject matter expert and the way she/he does things; the method and media of delivery.

This process of curriculum design determines the syllabus, the content materials, the learning tasks, the resulting learning activities and the ICT learning environment.The conjunction of these five factors forms the educational setting. Design and specification must ensure that activities are situated in real-world contexts, are authentic, and provide multiple perspectives on the subject matter. Some degree of coaching or guidance must be provided, by including meaningful examples and the different perspectives of experts and peers. At HE levels, students are expected to develop high-level cognitive skills such as negotiation of meaning, life-long learning, reflective analysis and meta-cognition. A central strategy for


achieving this consists in providing collaborative learning facilities, including CMC tools that enable both peer-to-peer and peer-to-tutor communication. Additionally, access to extra information and learning resources must be ensured, in order to satisfy different learners’ needs and styles.A crucial factor in the success of these online collaborative learning activities is a balanced participation of all the members of the group (Nunes and McPherson, 2003a). It is in the design and specification phase that all the components of the learning environment required by the curriculum design are defined, designed and specified. Learning activities and tasks must be designed so that they are situated in real world contexts, are authentic, and in conjunction provide multiple perspectives on the subject matter. Additionally, some degree of coaching or guidance must be provided, by including meaningful examples and the different perspectives of experts, as well as interpretations of peers. A central strategy for achieving this is to create collaborative learning environments where both face-to-face and computer mediated communication are available. Access to extra information sources must also be considered in order to allow different learners’ needs to be satisfied whenever needed. During the development phase, the learning environment is implemented according to the specifications emanating from the design phase. Since different types of educational technologies may be needed in order to implement all the planned activities, examples and communication channels, different development methodologies may then be applied. Due to the authoring facilities provided by most VLEs and other educational development packages, this phase is best supported by a rapid prototyping approach (Whitten et al., 1994:159; Martin, 1991; Smith, 1997:141–2; Boyle, 1997), as described in the next section. Once implemented, the online learning application must first be pilot tested in laboratory conditions and then field tested as a full component of the overall educational setting, as defined in the EMAR model. That is, the system needs to be evaluated within the educational setting. The final stage of the cycle of the ESD of an online learning environment consists of its installation and actual delivery.This involves strategies for use by learners and strategies for tutoring and scaffolding, as well as strategies for remedial action as will be discussed in Chapter 5. At this stage the e-learning environment becomes an integral part of the educational setting of EMAR and, therefore, the object of continuous action research evaluation. In summary, in a constructivist approach the curriculum design stage of the ESD establishes a core body of knowledge representative of the subject matter, and identifies the types of expert that use it and the tasks they perform.The design and specification phase outlines a comprehensive set of authentic activities, tasks, scaffolding and support to be provided to the learner. It must also detail the educational tools required and the function of each. During the development phase, the individual components of the learning environment are developed in parallel and then compounded and tested. Educationalists and technologists may be involved throughout the process. However, and in ge neral, educationalists, educational psychologists and subject


65

matter experts are more actively involved during the curriculum and design stages. Technologists have greater involvement during the development and testing.

Rapid prototyping as a learning environment development methodology Prototyping is a popular engineering technique used to develop a small-scale working model (or simulation) of a product or its components. When applied to IS development, prototyping is the act of building a small-scale, representative or working model of the user’s requirements for the purpose of discovering or verifying those requirements (Whitten et al., 1994:112). In other words, prototyping is a common design and development technique that consists of producing a trial version of the application in order to elicit, define and communicate application needs and user requirements (Smith, 1991:53).This process is illustrated in Figure 4.2.Thus, prototypes can be seen as simplified and untested equivalents of the actual application, performing all the basic functions specified for the final product (Howell, 1992). Furthermore, as discussed by Pomberger and Blaschek (1996:4), a prototype must be producible with significantly less effort then the final application and must be readily modifiable and extensible.The prototype need not have all the features of the target application, but it must enable the user to test all critical features and functions before the actual implementation. According to Smith (1997:139) and Avison and Fitzgerald (1993:40), prototypes are used for various purposes as a design and development method: ● ● ● ●

eliciting user functional requirements; testing a functional design; interface testing and evaluation; encouraging user participation and evaluation of the implementation.

Needs

Implementation

Reassess needs

Yes

Evaluation No

Continue ?

Not OK

Finished OK

Figure 4.2 General prototyping cycle


This seems to be ideally suited to address the needs of ESD designers. According to Barker (1993:79), an educational systems design team would use prototyping in order to test learning strategies, interaction methodologies, screen layouts, colour combinations, button designs and various other design parameters. In fact, VLE applications concentrate on the user interface and therefore there is often little or no processing or programming below that level.When there is, this is invisible to the user and the emphasis is still on the user interface (Howell, 1992:89).The use of prototyping can therefore easily be used to circumvent mistakes that may otherwise be costly to correct (Barker, 1993:79). Prototyping is particularly useful for educational applications since there is the need to assess the impact of the application on the learners and the learning process.There is also the need to closely involve the tutors and educationalists. In fact, the costs for both educationalists and students of the rejection of the application would be very high. In general, the benefits of prototyping as part of IS development are considerable, as discussed by Whitten et al., (1994:158), Smith (1991:53-5) and Redmond-Pyle and Moore (1995:218-19): ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

end-users become active participants in IS development; dialogue with users is made easier and more effective; allows bridging of culture and communication gaps between users and designers; allows downscaling of expectations to realistic proportions; requirement definition is simplified and more accurate; allows users and developers to change their minds at any point during the development without ‘stigma or loss of face’ Smith (1991:54); increases acceptability of the final IS; reduces development time (mainly in design and implementation); testing and rectification of design and implementation begins very early.

All these benefits are extremely desirable when developing educational applications, namely user involvement and the ‘downscaling’ to realistic proportions of high expectations arising from the hype and over-selling of online learning, multimedia and e-learning. In sum, implementing online learning environments means much more than just designing a few web pages and specifying their sequence. Today, such an approach is wholly insufficient to support effectively the learning processes envisaged in academic learning. The design and development of online learning environments involves collaboration between educationalists, subject matter experts and technologists in an ESD process, where the former are primarily focused on curriculum design concerns and the latter on the technical development of the application. Hence, the communication between these agents becomes paramount. These groups usually speak different ‘languages’ and do not readily understand the problems of the other (Lebow, 1993). Thus, an efficient ESD methodology must integrate and support the dialogue between them.


67

By definition, prototypes are a simple, complete and unambiguous means of communication between users and developers (Smith, 1991:53).The primary use of prototypes is to assure that the developer fully understands the requirements set by educationalists. This makes this approach particularly appropriate for the production of educational applications and addresses the communication problems between educationalists and designers. By implementing a rapid prototype first, the designers are able to put forward a fully functioning application presenting all the basic features of the final product, such as user interface, link structure and support facilities.This is not a diagrammatic approximation or representation, but an actual implementation of the specifications for the educational application. These prototypes can be realistically tested and assessed and rapidly changed on an ongoing basis until consensus is reached. Evaluation and testing of these prototypes must be done by educationalists and should ideally include pilot tests using target learners. In truth, current VLE tools are increasingly more comprehensive and often include easy-to-use authoring facilities (wizards) aiming to support both professional-quality and non-expert efforts, so that the developer of an educational application is now often the educationalist her/himself. Nevertheless, the need for an adequate understanding of ESD as a supporting design methodology is always present.

The MA in ITM Case Study Online learning design and development for ITM The MA in ITM educational systems design In order to support sustained and effective change when introducing ICT within a continuing professional distance education (CPDE) environment, this research team found it necessary to develop an appropriate action research framework.The educational management action research (EMAR) model, as first proposed by McPherson and Nunes (2002b) and illustrated in Figure 2.5, emerged from research into and facilitation of this type of change process in the MA in ITM, over a four-year period. EMAR aimed to support the development of new strategies and designs required by the new medium of delivery and thereby to enable course improvement, tutor development, management strategies maturation and infrastructure evolution. A CPDE course in a fast-moving field such as IT management, quite independently of being based on an online learning approach, always requires an action research framework that supports the continuously changing requirements and needs of both industry and adult professionals. The awareness of this need for persistent improvement led several authors to express the opinion that any course development must not only meet the objectives of how students learn, but also take into account the students’


motivations, priorities and preferences (Fraser, 1997). The introduction of online learning has added to this complexity. ‘Online teaching represents a shift from a model of efficiency to a model of quality’ (Harasim et al., 1995). Thus, in order to support this need for persistent improvement, educational action research must be understood as a cyclical process, as stated above.As shown in Figure 1.2, this cycle consists of diagnosing, action planning, action taking and action evaluation. Triggering the change process discussed in this case study was the diagnosis of the need to move from a traditional to an online learning solution for the ITM course delivery. Associated with this change process, a number of student and tutor needs and requirements were identified that led to the pedagogical model presented in Chapter 3. This pedagogical model was then translated into the corresponding educational setting design.This corresponds to action planning. The next phase of our action research framework encompassed the design and development of the online learning course environments and the use of these during course delivery. This corresponds to action taking. Formative evaluation during the delivery, summative evaluation at the end of each module and follow-up evaluation to assess the impact of the course are then used to improve the pedagogical model and redesign the educational setting. This constitutes action evaluation. From this action evaluation, new needs may be identified that trigger new cycles. In this section, we will discuss the translation of the pedagogical model and curriculum design into the educational setting. Evaluation is discussed in the next chapter.

Curriculum design Once the pedagogical model for the ITM CPDE programme was proposed by the academic team, it was necessary to translate this into an appropriate curriculum design that could then be used to design the different module environments, following the educational systems design process illustrated in Figure 4.1. ITM aims and objectives As stated above, the overall aim of the ITM programme is to develop IT professionals with a mixture of good communication, interpersonal and management skills. As there is clearly a need for more qualified and experienced IT managers and consultants with such skills, emphasis is placed on improving knowledge, understanding and practical skills, as well as the confidence to apply these in the world of work.


ITM general structure The ITM programme is modular in structure. In order to realise the aims expressed above, the curriculum design of the course focuses mainly on aspects of management (e.g. change management and project management). Nevertheless, in any CPDE in the field of ICT, courses need to allow for some updating and refreshing of emerging technology advances. Finally, CPDE courses often allow for different exit routes depending on individual motivations and achievements in the course. The MA in ITM was designed around three core modules, two approved ones and a final dissertation as follows: ●

● ●

During Year 1, students take the following core modules: – The Management of Change in the Context of IT; – Systems Management and IT. During Year 2, students take the following core module: – Project Management. In addition, Year 2 students choose one of the following approved modules: – Multimedia; – ICT and E-commerce.

Students undertaking the Postgraduate Certificate are required to take the two Year 1 core modules. Students taking the Postgraduate Diploma or MA are required to take all three core modules and one of the two approved modules in Years 1 and 2. In addition, students taking the MA undertake a one-year dissertation research project in Year 3.

ITM general conceptual model Conceptual models, as discussed earlier in this chapter, are used by educational systems designers to translate both the adopted pedagogical model and the curriculum design into an appropriate educational setting. These learning environments incorporate available learning support systems, mediated by tutors, using educational technology (EdT). The conceptual model in Figure 4.3 represents an implementation model for the MA in ITM course, adopting the curriculum design structure above. Through action research on the delivery of the course and evaluation of student behaviours and feedback, as will be discussed in Chapter 5, this initial attempt was considerably improved and developed.

69


MA in ITM Tutor support

WebCT Change mgt

Tutor support WebCT Systems mgt

. .

Tutor support WebCT Dissertation

Figure 4.3 MA in ITM initial implementation model

ITM generic module design The MA in ITM students’ learning activities are supported by a networked web-based environment designed by the course team, using facilities offered by WebCT.This enables both peer-to-peer and tutor-to-peer interaction by means of already built-in computer-mediated communications (CMC) facilities. In this case,WebCT has been chosen centrally by the university as its adopted virtual learning environment (VLE) and is a typical example of organisational constraints that become an integral part of the educational setting. These types of constraints are, therefore, not optional variables for course and educational systems designers. The generic structure for the ITM modules emerged from the overall pedagogical model described in Chapter 3. This generic model was then adapted and modified according to the needs and requirements of the curriculum design for each particular module. This process of curriculum design determines the syllabus, the content materials, the learning tasks and the resulting learning activities. As proposed in Figure 4.1, the educational systems designer must take into account the conjunction of the five factors mentioned and produce an appropriate educational setting.


The change management strategy for the ITM course transformation into online learning provision was devised so that a step-by-step approach could be adopted. It was decided that one module would be selected and the corresponding online learning environment designed and developed, first as a pilot and then to be used as a model for the design of the remaining modules.The pilot chosen was the Year 2 Project Management (Y2PM) module. . The design of the Y2PM module was achieved by following the framework proposed in Figure 4.1. In this case the curriculum design was already completed, as the project aimed solely at a change of delivery mode rather than change of syllabus and content.The design, specification and development of the online environment followed a prototyping approach as illustrated in Figure 4.2 and the pedagogical rationale described in the case study in Chapter 3.The prototypes were built using WebCT as the supporting VLE and evaluated by a number of dissertation students and tutors. The resulting entry page into the environment (also generally known as home page) is shown in Figure 4.4. This home page gives access to the main components of the learning environment.The Module Café, defined by Nunes et al. (2002a) as an informal asynchronous communication area, is a space where both subject matter specific and general discussions can be held.Topics of the week, questions from students and general advice from tutors can be posted in this virtual café. It is the natural communication space for the course.

Figure 4.4 Year 2 Project Management (Y2PM) module home page

71


The Administration Issues area, as illustrated in Figure 4.5, provides students with detailed administration information about the module, its aims, objectives, structure and mode of assessment. Additionally, and of crucial importance in DE, this area provides important dates in advance so that students can plan their professional, family and social lives accordingly. Important dates are not only the dates of submission of coursework, but also periods of self-study and day schools.

Figure 4.5 Y2PM module: the Administration Area


Figure 4.6 Y2PM module: the Course Notes and Materials Area The Course Notes and Materials area provides more than 250 pages of detailed and explicit learning materials, including self-assessment exercises, case study materials and extensive theoretical discussions. These were initially made available in both HTML and PDF formats. The Day School area provides all the information about the day school in advance, e.g. programme of the day, case study materials, case study briefing and activities breakdown. Additionally, and after each day school, the MS PowerPoint slides of the different sessions and presentations, and the results of all student activities are posted online. Examples of this are shown in Figure 4.7.

73


Figure 4.7 Y2PM module: the Day School Area As shown in Figure 4.8, the Resources and Links area provides an extensive learning support resource, including both internal links to university information facilities and external web links.The internal links consist of reading lists of books, articles and case studies, as well as direct access to the university library information portal. This portal gives access to the university library catalogue, online information providers, online journals and current awareness services, and of course all the traditional library support services.


It is important to note that the university library actually has a distance education loan service in place, which has been used by the MA in ITM students with considerable success. Furthermore, the Resources and Links area provides access to a number of professional bodies, IS and PM organisations and other relevant links.These aim at enabling student exploration beyond the course boundaries and encouraging discovery and active learning. Finally, this area provides links to a number of PM software tools necessary for the practical aspects of the course.

Figure 4.8 Y2PM module: the Resources and Links Area

75


The last component of the Y2PM online environment is the Tutorial Group area.The team for every MA in ITM module is composed of a coordinator and two (or more) teaching assistants. Each teaching assistant is responsible for a subset of the student cohort.This area was aimed at enabling direct and private discussions within these tutorial groups. This initial module design was used to deliver to the Y2PM students in the academic year 1999–2000. Chapters 5 and 6 will discuss the reflections, evaluations and conclusions derived from both student and tutor experiences using this design.

Conclusions The EMAR model was explicitly developed in the context of a change process undergone by the MA in ITM offered by the Department of Information Studies of the University of Sheffield.This process involved the transition from traditional paper-based distance education into an e-learning mode of delivery. Pressures from both industry and students made this change inevitable and represented the initial trigger for a process that started in 1998. Online learning environments, such as the one required for MA in ITM, are very complex settings that require the cooperation of different types of experts – educators, technologists and educational informatics researchers – as well as the conjugation of different philosophies, modes of thinking and methods. In the case of the MA in ITM, development was well supported by both EMAR (as shown in Figure 2.5), as a general action research framework, and an ESD framework (as shown in Figure 4.1). This ESD framework in particular enabled effective communication between the different groups and stages of the project.

Chapter 5

Tutoring and delivering online learning As discussed earlier in this book, universities are changing because their world is changing, and perceptions of their functions, role and utility change with it (Duke, 2002:7). Specifically, industry is increasingly demanding professionals with more flexible and assured skills in communication, problem analysis and problem solving, planning and networking, and life-long learning (Kakabadse and Korac-Kakabadse, 2000). Thus, it is perceived by society in general that graduates are not being empowered with all the skills required to be competitive in their professional careers. Consequently, as HE institutions try to meet both old and new expectations from all quarters, the role and activities of universities become more complex (Duke, 2002:26). The function of HE is therefore becoming much wider and a great deal more complicated, encompassing not only the transference of subjectspecific knowledge, but also the promotion of the capability of applying those skills in the context of specific fields or industry sectors (Nunes et al., 2000a). As also discussed previously, the new opportunities provided for access to information by the convergence of information and communication technology (ICT) and emergent pedagogical thinking has enabled HE institutions to develop online webbased curricula in order to respond to these increasing demands (Berge and Collins, 1995b; SKIP, 1998).This adoption of web-based flexible learning environments also enables universities to reach an increasing number of students in both traditional distance education and further and continuing education (French et al., 1999). However, Duke (2002:121) suggests that transforming delivery of courses, modules and sometimes even entire programmes into mixed or multi-modal

77


environments requires widely permeative changes to information management, organisational behaviour, pedagogical approaches and staff attitudes. Furthermore, the ‘communication and IT revolution transforms both the world and its ways of communicating and the expectations, needs and learning attributes of students, quite apart from offering the university new ways to teach and administer’ (Duke, 2002:25). In fact, online learning requires much more in terms of pedagogy than merely transforming lecture slides into web-based lecture notes. The resulting resurgence of educational approaches and epistemologies, such as constructivism and problem-based learning, have been identified as possible ways of maximising these online learning environments. As a consequence, educationalists feel compelled to adopt these new methods of learning provision, without being properly equipped with the basic skills to successfully support learners in the online learning environment. In fact, learners are expected to develop high cognitive skills such as negotiation of meaning, life-long learning, reflective analysis and metacognition supported by tutors who often lack these same skills themselves. This chapter discusses online learning support mechanisms that must be made available to individuals when engaging with online learning environments, especially collaborative and constructivist learning environments. Appropriate delivery and support are as important to the success of online learning as good design and development but have not always been given the same attention by authors and researchers.

Online learning delivery in an academic context As discussed in Chapter 3, in terms of higher education, academic learning involves the acquisition of high-level skills of critical thinking and problem solving, in addition to the gathering of facts and concepts. This type of learning consists of a process of construction of knowledge and the development of reflexive awareness, where the individual is an active processor of information. Learning occurs through interaction with rich learning environments, and results from engaging in authentic activities, and from social interaction and negotiation (Nunes and McPherson, 2003b).Accordingly, this view of learning reflects the constructivist learning theory. For that reason, and as discussed in Chapter 4, this type of learning process requires the development and reinforcement of both internal and external cognitive links during learning activities (Nunes and McPherson, 2003b). Internal associations reflect the learner’s understanding of a particular concept, whilst external associations refer to connections between the concept and context (Grabinger and Dunlap, 1995). Learners will make use of both these cognitive links when using a constructed concept in their future activities. Online environments must therefore provide support for situated and multiperspective learning as well as enabling social construction of meanings through negotiation with peers and tutors. Consequently, for learning to be effective, it requires interaction with rich learning environments and engagement in authentic activities.

Tutoring and delivering online learning 79

This need for situated learning, social negotiation and multiple perspectives implies that a number of different learning strategies must be adopted to assist the learner in the construction of knowledge (Nunes and Fowell, 1996a). Designing environments to support these different strategies results in learning environments that Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) coined REALs, as discussed in Chapter 3. As further argued in Chapter 4, REALs are expected to promote learning and encourage the growth of associated skills such as responsibility, initiative, communication, articulation of ideas and arguments, decision making, problem solving, intentional learning and ownership of the acquired knowledge. Thus, REALs would theoretically support the acquisition of the transferable skills that are being demanded of graduates by society. However, this is not always the case, partly due to the design mismatches mentioned in Chapter 4, but also because learning through online REALs has to be supported by appropriate resources and requires a number of specific skills from both tutor and learners.This need for learner support clearly requires a different approach from conventional theory. Online learning support (OLS), as defined by Nunes and McPherson (2003c), are computer-mediated approaches to support and facilitate learning, using a combination of skills that encompass information and IT expertise, as well as expertise in the educational uses of online learning resources, environments and communication technologies. In the light of this, it is possible to distinguish three different components of OLS: online tutor skills, online learning skills and specifically designed online learning facilities.

Online tutoring strategies and skills The academic context described above is characterised by a tendency to subsume open, online learning activities within the resources of the broader campus-based remit (Cornford and Pollock, 2003). In fact, online learning implies much more than a simple technical exercise in which some materials or processes are simply transferred from the offline world to some ready-made online realm (Cornford and Pollock, 2003). To compound this situation most online learning initiatives start as small-scale departmental projects (Robinson, 2001) and therefore, the implementation of this type of learning approach faces a high level of risk due to its uncertain status and unfamiliarity. The consequence of this is that such initiatives commonly focus on the design and development of the online learning environments, and consequently insufficient attention is given to the delivery process.These efforts have little chance of succeeding without a tutoring team that has the appropriate online tutoring skills necessary to explore and maximise the designed environments (McPherson and Nunes, 2003b). For that reason, the tutoring team is at least as important as the design team and requires careful consideration. This means that the tutoring team should possess not simply subject matter expertise and/or technical skills, but moreover the information and communication literacy skills to manage and facilitate online learning.Thus, the choice of a suitable


tutor team with appropriate skills, or at least the willingness to acquire these, is critical to the success of online learning. Furthermore, tutor teams must adopt appropriate delivery methodologies that prepare learners for the difficult task of learning and interacting online. Online tutoring and leadership have been widely considered as a crucial factor in the success of computer-mediated collaborative learning activities. Different and alternative names have been used in the literature referring to the role of the tutor in online interaction, such as coach (Murphy et al., 1998), leader (Hotte and Pierre, 2002), tutor (Gerrard, 2002), moderator (Kerr, 1986; Salmon, 2000), facilitator (Marjanovic, 1999; Berge, 1992), motivator, mentor, mediator (English and Yazdani, 1999) and even production coordinator (Ross, 1996; English and Yazdani, 1999). Nevertheless, most studies focus on online tutoring as provided by an assigned e-moderator (Kerr, 1986; Salmon, 2000).These moderators were divided into institutional interveners, appointed interveners and natural interveners by Hotte and Pierre (2002), i.e. tutors, experts and learners.This section focuses on the institutional interveners, that is, the academic tutors who support the students throughout their learning process. In fact, by deciding to adopt online learning delivery, educationalists will need to re-evaluate their roles as academic tutors, since familiar face-to-face (f2f) teaching solutions may not work in an online learning environment (McPherson and Nunes, 2003b).This, in essence, means that professional practices are indeed changing. As McMann (1994) points out, roles that have to be performed as part of online tutors’ tasks are actually not very dissimilar in nature to traditional f2f tasks. Nevertheless, there are significant differences that were identified from the very start of online learning as a delivery mode. Authors such as Mason (1991) discussed the roles of tutors as involving responsibilities at both technical and educational level. Mason (1991) focused on discussion of the educational role of the online moderator as involving three categories: the organisational, the social and the intellectual. Berge (1992), based on a thorough literature review, further developed this characterisation and identified four main online tutor roles: ●

●

Pedagogical or intellectual roles are some of the most important for the online learning process (Paulsen, 1995). The online tutor uses questions and probes for learners’ responses that focus discussion on critical concepts, principles and skills (Zafeiriou, 2000). These roles may involve a number of tasks such as: opening discussions; focusing on relevant content and issues; intervening in order to promote interest and productive conversation; guiding and maintaining learners’ involvement in discussions; and summarising debates. Social roles involve the creation of friendly and comfortable social environments in which learners feel that knowledge acquisition is possible. McMann (1994) considers the social role to be one of the critical success factors in online learning. In this context, online tutors are responsible for: guaranteeing opportunities for participants to introduce themselves; identifying and dealing with ‘lurkers’ who are reticent and sometimes reluctant to participate; ensuring that appropriate communication takes place; taking into consideration


●

●

cultural and ethnic backgrounds by minimising humoristic, offensive and disruptive behaviour; promoting interactivity between students; and finally, dealing with flaming, should this occur, by reminding participants of the appropriate netiquette (online etiquette). Managerial or organisational roles involve setting learning objectives; establishing agendas for the learning activities; timetabling learning activities and tasks; and clarifying procedural rules and decision-making norms (Mason, 1991; Paulsen, 1995). Technical roles, possibly the most daunting for academics, involve becoming familiar, comfortable and competent with the ICT systems and software that compose the online learning environment.

The interpretation of these roles may vary considerably according to different pedagogical views. However, and similarly to all other educational practitioners, online learning tutors and designers always make use of theories of learning, both implicitly or explicitly expressed (Bigge and Shermis, 1999).They call on prior knowledge and experience when developing and using their courses and environments.They bring to bear previous solutions and strategies they have used, experienced or seen that fit the particular constraints of the current situation (Roberts, 1996). These previous experiences play a central role in specifying the course structure, contents and delivery strategies.Thus, if no explicit methodology and pedagogical delivery strategies are consciously considered and planned, the online tutor/facilitator will tend to incorporate her/his own model of learning, which may be incorrect, inadequate or even incompatible with the planned learning activity. Furthermore, the lack of an overall methodology implies a lack of a consistent and adequate educational approach throughout the online learning delivery.

Online tutoring strategies Online learning delivery strategies must address issues relating to: online learner skills; online learning facilitation, tutoring and support; the effective and appropriate use of online learning materials; the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools to enable both peer-to-tutor and peer-to-peer interaction; as well as tutor strategies, skills and training. Often, online learning makes use of virtual learning environments (VLE), which then imply an extra level of complexity for the learner and additional problems of maintenance, communication and support for tutors (McPherson and Nunes, 2003b). In order to address some of these issues, Salmon (2000) proposed a model developed through action research. This five-step model provides a ‘set of constructs’ that can be used as a guide to online tutoring: providing Access and Motivation for and of learners; engaging in Online Socialisation with learners in order to enable participants to gain familiarity with the online environment; enabling and facilitating Information Exchange; facilitating and encouraging Knowledge Construction through the designed environment; and finally providing scaffolding for Development of online skills and behaviours that enable learners to pursue their learning objectives.


Online tutoring skills From the characterisation of academic learning and OLS above, it is clear that, although similar in many respects to more traditional approaches and even to faceto-face (f2f) delivery, constructivist online tutoring is distinct in a number of ways. Numerous authors, such as Gerrard (2002) and McPherson and Nunes (2003a), assess the online environment in comparison to f2f, as follows: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

places greater emphasis on written skills; produces a more formal tone; does not follow a linear conversation but instead promotes multiple conversations; does not confine tutoring to specific times; places greater emphasis on student–student learning; requires tutors to develop new ways of encouraging participation; requires tutors to assess the worth of online contributions.

Therefore, even for the more experienced f2f tutor, there is much knowledge to be acquired about the skills required for online learning. However, in addition to the subject matter expertise and traditional pedagogical training, the online tutor must be able to demonstrate additional skills necessary to be successful in a constructivist REAL, such as the ability to: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

plan and organise delivery by clearly specifying learning objectives and outcomes; set learning agendas and provide leadership and scaffolding in learning activities; welcome and embrace diversity of learning outcomes, attitudes and styles; adapt supporting styles to the needs of individual participants; provide advice on different levels of access to learning materials according to the needs of individual participants; create an atmosphere of collaborative learning of which the e-tutor him/herself is often an integral part; be able to cope with and resolve online conferencing conflicts and difficult behaviours; encourage active construction of knowledge by being actively involved in discussions, activities and debates; develop and implement methods for learner feedback and reinforcement; present advance organisers into the content materials and advise on learning pace so as to avoid cognitive overload and information anxiety. (McPherson and Nunes, 2003a).

These constructivist online tutoring skills, necessary to support academic learning, pose particular challenges, since very often the tutors have not themselves undergone a constructivist learning experience. Furthermore, most tutors, not having


themselves been online learners, may have difficulties in understanding learners’ anxieties and support needs.

Online learning skills It is not enough that tutors are prepared for online learning, the learners also need preparation. Due to the hype associated with online learning, learners often feel compelled to engage with these new environments without being properly equipped with the basic skills required to be successful (Nunes et al., 2000a). In fact, students are expected to have developed high cognitive skills such as negotiation of meaning, life-long learning, reflective analysis and meta-cognition without being properly trained in low-level skills such as the basic use of computer-mediated technology, online social skills, online etiquette, web navigation and web searching.These skills were identified by Nunes et al. (2000b) as networked information and communication literacy skills (NICLS).These skills are not only required to succeed in the online learning environment to which learners are exposed, but are also an essential part of all aspects of daily networked activity. In the future, these basic NICLS will be addressed and acquired at lower levels of the educational system, namely at primary school. However, most students now enrolling in HE courses are young adults, having only acquired the traditional basic educational skills of reading, writing, spelling, handwriting and numeracy (Bramley, 1991:100).These skills are insufficient for effective learning in a REAL. NICLS complement the traditional basic skills with a new set of information and communication literacy skills. Information literacy includes recognising information needs, distinguishing ways of addressing gaps, constructing strategies of locating information, locating and accessing information and comparing and evaluating information, as well as organising, applying and synthesising information (Webber and Johnston, 2000).Additionally, the limitations and affordances of conferencing technologies require adaptations and changes in human behaviour in order for successful communication to take place (Musselbrook et al., 2000).The skills required to undertake such a change when communicating online form what can be considered communication literacy, as suggested by Pincas (2000). The conjunction of these two new types of literacy form what Nunes et al. (2000b) identified as NICLS. These basic NICLS can be defined as the skills required by students to successfully use networked communication and information technologies to learn. Goodyear (2000) defines ‘networked learning’ as: learning in which information and communications technology (ICT) is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors, between a learning community and its learning resources (Goodyear, 2000:9).


Therefore, and as discussed above, NICLS can be clearly divided into two main categories: computer-mediated communication (CMC) and information skills. CMC skills are related to the interaction of the student with the learning community, and information skills are related to problems of information anxiety and overload, as well as access to the learning resources. Consequently the characterisation of NICLS needs to be focused on three main topics: ● ● ●

online collaboration and cooperation; information searching and retrieval; evaluation of networked information resources.

Online collaboration and cooperation – technical and social aspects Paulsen (1995) included electronic mail, bulletin boards, computer conferencing and chat facilities as examples of CMC technologies. In fact, CMC, as coined by Mason and Kaye (1989), is now commonly used to identify a variety of systems that enable people to communicate with others separated in space and/or time, via computers and networks. CMC technologies are currently used as the main backbone to support educational purposes in networked learning environments. Paulsen (1995) classified the interactions supported by CMC according to the number of individuals taking part: ● ● ● ●

one-alone techniques – where a student can perform the learning task without addressing the tutor, e.g. by retrieving information from online resources; one-to-one techniques, e.g. those conducted via e-mail; one-to-many techniques, e.g. those provided by bulletin boards or e-mail distribution lists; many-to-many techniques, e.g. those organised within computer conferencing systems or chat rooms.

According to Berge and Collins (1995b), most educational applications of CMC have the following characteristics: ● ● ●

enable accommodation of different learning styles and the empowerment of learners; allow learners to use the same tools and methods as the professionals; facilitate an interdisciplinary, project-oriented approach to teaching and learning, which creates authentic practice.

One of the greatest benefits of CMC is its ability to liberate educational delivery from the constraints of time and distance. CMC is supposed to promote self-discipline and requires learners to take more responsibility for their own learning. However, there is the need to prepare students to use these technologies in the context of learning. Learners need to be skilled in the following:

Tutoring and delivering online learning 85 ●

●

Technical aspects This includes the technical skills needed to use CMC in an online learning situation – the ‘how to’ aspects of the course as proposed by Musselbrook et al., (2000).The learning curve, with regard to learning the system and the technical ‘how tos’ of the computer and telecommunications, can be very steep and has to be designed carefully. Social aspects For successful communication to take place, the introduction of CMC into the learning environment generally requires changes and adaptations in human behaviour (Musselbrook et al., 2000; Carr, 2000).Authors such as Rutter et al. (1981) argued that the lack of social cues such as audio and visual information, usually present in face-to-face (f2f), could hinder communication and disrupt the learning process. Therefore, and as proposed by Sproull and Kiesler (1991:40–55), students should be aware of crucial social factors involved in using CMC technologies such as: ignoring social boundaries, dealing with self-disclosure, flaming, guiding behaviour, adding cues to the communication (emoticons) and online etiquette (netiquette).

Information searching and retrieval This component of NICLS covers the exploration and discovery of information available to students via electronic networked environments, e.g. the Internet or institutional intranets.There is now a vast amount of networked information available and it is growing exponentially, mainly due to the following factors: ● ● ● ●

The capacity of the Internet network infrastructure has been substantially increased. New software tools are helping us to realise dreams of rapid worldwide distribution of information via attractive and intuitive interfaces. New users, arriving from a wide spectrum of occupations and preoccupations, are connecting up in increasing numbers. As the business community begins to see the advantages offered, there is an enormous growth in the commercial use of networks.

Against this backdrop of volatile growth and change, the novice online student may feel that the networks present a daunting and bewildering picture of information overload. This term, first used by Alvin Toffler (1990:350) in his book Future Shock, is now particularly relevant to online learners and tutors as well as to almost everyone who navigates the web, in that the information available is overwhelming, frustrating and sometimes defeating in its extent (Breivik, 1997). Furthermore, information may keep changing, in form, content or location. Or the information stays the same but the way you get to it changes. In either case, what the new user looks for is some clear and simple guidance on:What’s out there? How can it be explored? Where can the required information be located? Therefore, students must be able to find and retrieve information from online resources such as web indexes, search engines, online information services,


electronic journals, commercial and marketing services, databases and data-sets, campus information servers, library catalogues and mailing list archives, to name a few. Furthermore, students need to be skilled in undertaking systematic searches within the networked environment. This can only be achieved by formulating appropriate searching strategies, which include scope and boundary definition, selection of keywords, selection of synonyms, truncations, alternative spellings and limitations (publication date, language, country, etc.).All these aspects of the search strategy have to be bound together by the use of appropriate Boolean logic in forming search strings.

Evaluation and selection of networked information With the information explosion fuelled by the Internet, another networked learning skill that has become increasingly important is that of information evaluation. Students need to learn how to evaluate the reliability of sources, their accuracy, relevance, comprehensiveness, authority and soundness of argument, and the distinction between fact and opinion (Berge and Collins, 1995b). Students have to be able to critically evaluate the information resources and incorporate the selected information into their own knowledge base through cognitive conflict with their own values and beliefs systems. In sum, NICLS can clearly be divided into two main categories: CMC and information skills. CMC skills are related to the interaction of the student with the learning community and information skills are related to problems of information anxiety and overload as well as access to the learning resources. Learners must acquire NICLS before actually engaging with any online learning activity. Failure to address this issue in online learning can lead to much frustration for the learners, and eventually to lower levels of success for the online learning courses (Hara and Kling, 1999).

Online learning resources and facilities As proposed by Kommers (1996), learning resources are those information resources the learner might need at a given moment in learning, thinking or designing new ideas, while engaging with a particular learning activity.The constructivist learning approach, as discussed in this book, assumes that knowledge is acquired through social negotiation, experience and reflection, i.e. resulting from the construction of meaning from interaction with specific contexts. This construction results from two different types of interactivity in the learning process (Bates, 1991).The first is an individual, private activity between the learner and the learning materials, which may range from the traditional textbook to computerbased simulations. The second is a social activity, between the learner and the tutor, the facilitator or other learners.


Private interaction with the learning and conceptual materials is expected to promote learning by provoking cognitive restructuring (Shulman and Ringstaff, 1986). Cognitive restructuring occurs as learners revise their ways of thinking to provide a better fit to reality when faced with discrepancies between their own ways of viewing the world and new information (Rogoff, 1990). Social interaction with tutors and facilitators is expected to promote development through the guidance provided by interaction with people who are skilled in solving the problems emerging from the learning activities (Rogoff, 1990). Social interaction with the learner’s peers is expected to promote learning by joint problem solving and meaning negotiation between partners working with independence and equality on each other’s ideas (Rogoff, 1990). Both private and social interactivity are required in the process of social negotiation and have to be supported by the learning environment. If learning is the process of socially constructing a communal understanding, a collective, constructive social process (Zucchermaglio, 1993), then the learner must be surrounded by a learning environment which provides resources that support the communication and negotiation processes between members of a social community inserted in a rich learning environment, such as a REAL (McPherson and Nunes, 2003a).

Online learning support and action research Using constructivism in online learning is not intuitive to either learners or tutors. Current learners and tutors were probably educated in highly objectivist educational systems, and are thus often ill-prepared for the independence, action and interaction required by this epistemology. Successful online learning courses require, even more than well-designed environments, motivated tutors and interested learners, demanding a set of information, communication and social skills that need to be acquired prior to the online learning activities. Possession of these skills will ultimately determine strategies and styles adopted by both tutors and learners. For a successful online learning experience, it is necessary for these strategies to be in line with the pedagogical thinking behind the design of the learning environments. If tutors and learners are not adequately prepared, they will tend to use inappropriate approaches, which will clash with the design of the learning environment and often lead to failure of the learning activities and processes – thus making the achievement of the intended learning outcomes very difficult and resulting in backlash against both this learning approach and the technology that supports it.Additionally, during the delivery process, both tutors and learners need the support of adequate learning resources, designed explicitly according to a constructivist approach. According to Riding et al. (1995), action research has been used in many areas where an understanding of complex social situations is required. Therefore, this type of research is particularly appropriate for investigating learning situations since they constitute very complex social settings. In truth, since online learning is a fairly


new phenomenon in education and is often new to both tutors and learners, action research is an ideal approach to enable reflective practice and the exploration of tutoring strategies and styles. Tutors as ‘reflective practitioners’ (Schön, 1983) can improve their practice and become better tutors through engaging in methodical evaluation and by becoming systematically self-assessing. This should occur alongside, and feed into, external evaluation processes (Riding et al., 1995). Thereby, tutors can achieve greater ownership of the learning process and actively engage in design of the learning environment itself: Through systematic, controlled action research, higher education teachers can become more professional, more interested in pedagogical aspects of higher education and more motivated to integrate their research and teaching interests in a holistic way. This, in turn, can lead to greater job satisfaction, better academic programmes, improvement of student learning and practitioner’s insights and contributions to the advancement of knowledge in higher education. (Zuber-Skerritt, 1982:15) The EMAR model was particularly useful in enabling tutors to undertake action research during the delivery process, by providing a holistic framework to scaffold the devised tutoring and learning strategies and to avoid the pitfalls of reductionism mentioned in Chapter 2. The following section of our case study illustrates how action research was used to improve practice in the MA in ITM.

The MA in ITM Case Study The ITM online learning support model As discussed in Chapter 3, the MA in ITM pedagogical model is based on a general distance education model which presupposes that both tutors and students are geographically and temporally dispersed.The theoretical pedagogical underpinning relies on a moderate constructivist approach (Duit, 1996; Pahl et al., 2002), which is centred on problem-based learning environments aiming at fostering self-regulated and collaborative learning. It was therefore assumed that the ITM students, as adult ICT professionals, would be intrinsically motivated and equipped with the necessary skills to learn online. Similarly, it was assumed that tutors, as experts in the field of ICT and experienced in distance education, would be able to adapt easily to the environments that resulted from the design and development process described in Chapter 4. In this chapter, we will discuss how some of these


assumptions were found to be impractical and unrealistic, and in some cases were actually rejected by the students. Such a discussion at programme level would not be viable. Therefore, we will not address every individual and specific tutoring strategy or support issue, but will instead present anecdotal evidence of particular assumptions that were questioned in practice and subsequently addressed, thus having a tangible impact on both course design and delivery.

Discussion Any course team makes a number of assumptions when designing and delivering a course.These assumptions may be derived from learning theory, from previous practice, from perceived wisdom or may even be due to pragmatic constraints posed by the organisational context. The following assumptions were made by the MA in ITM academic programme team, some proving to be quite problematic.

Assumption 1: IT professionals are motivated and equipped to be successful online learners. As referred to previously, the MA in ITM is an entirely distance-learning programme and course participants are professionals in the ICT sector. When migrating from an established paper-based system to an online learning approach, it was assumed that, because of their technological background, students would possess the necessary learning, information and communication skills to be successful in the new online learning environment. This assumption, which in hindsight may seem naïve, was generally accepted by the course team and resulted in the decision that no particular student training was required. The consequences of this decision were that online learning resources were severely under-used by students, leading to student under-performance. Furthermore, the designed learning environment failed to match both student and tutor expectations (Nunes et al., 2000a). This was particularly evident in terms of usage of the CMC facilities. In fact, the ITM learning environments offer both synchronous and asynchronous communications modes, namely e-mail, electronic bulletin board, chat, and personal web space. During delivery of the first full online course, indications were that the chat facility was well used by small, self-selecting cohorts of students, who built a sense of community throughout a longer period of contact, whereas students coming to the environment in the first year did not make use of the CMC facilities to the same extent.There was also evidence that


some individual students were much more active online than others, some of whom never contributed to online discussions.This clearly indicated that some students were making better use of the online facilities provided then others. Furthermore, the course team also noted that many students made inappropriate use of the system, showing behaviours incompatible with the purpose for which it was designed (e.g. flaming, lurking or accessing information but not contributing to online activities and discussions). Having diagnosed all of these as potential problems, the programme team decided to investigate further and undertook a study of online facility usage of the MA in ITM web-based learning environment.This study included a statistical analysis using student logs and a survey of student attitudes and feelings towards the online learning environment.As part of ongoing action research by the ITM course team, Rico (2000) conducted a survey that clearly showed that the students, despite being IT literate, were not equipped with the necessary skills to make immediate use of the learning environment provided. In fact, it was found that students were anxious about participating in online conversations. Students also stated that they often had the perception that conversations were being manipulated and controlled by a restricted number of assertive participants.Additionally, they also felt unsure about the code of behaviour required of them when engaging in online activities. Finally, many felt unable to find the information they required for assignments and coursework. Rico (2000) also conducted research into support offered to students online, namely when using WebCT as the VLE.This revealed that a number of academic institutions with online programmes supported by WebCT had created student guides to help their users to become acquainted to this networked environment.A survey and critical analysis of these guides showed a wide diversity of contents and styles, but that none offered a complete introduction to the skills required to comprehensively and effectively train their learners (Rico, 2000).That is, almost the entirety of these guides concentrated on technical aspects of using the learning environment rather than the communication, social and information skills necessary for successful learning. At the same time, findings emerging from other similar research confirmed our results (Hara, 2000; Hara and Kling, 2000; Hara and Kling, 2001; McDowell and Pickard, 2000), indicating that these problems were mainly due to the learners’ lack of awareness and proficiency with networked information and communication literacy skills (NICLS), as defined elsewhere in this chapter. This is viewed as one of the main factors undermining the effectiveness of online learning (Mazoué, 1999). It is now clear that these CMC facilities are of prime importance for learners to carry out their studies in distance education (Nunes et al., 2001). Having understood the problem, the course team then tried to devise a solution, which materialised in the form of a four-week NICLS induction


module. This course aimed to provide learners with core competencies in basic communication and information skills, prior to starting the MA in ITM programme. It was designed so that students would be trained to carry out proficiently course learning activities in the selected web-based learning environment. Moreover, it also aimed at encouraging participants to work collaboratively with their peers, in order to become aware of the potential benefits and constraints of online learning.Therefore, a core body of knowledge and information that is central in NICLS was identified in the curriculum design, including: CMC technical skills; CMC social skills; online cooperation skills; and information skills. Consequently, the module provided a hands-on experience with the very tools and methods that would be used by learners when engaging in actual learning using WebCT and, by the end of this induction module, learners were expected to: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

demonstrate proficiency in the use of the WebCT technologies; show awareness of the social factors affecting CMC; use and comply with the different conventions and etiquette for CMC; effectively communicate and work collaboratively online with both peers and tutors; formulate different searching strategies effectively; demonstrate the knowledge of criteria for evaluating online resources; evaluate the validity of search findings.

The resulting module outline can be seen in Appendix 1. The design and development of the NICLS module is a perfect example of action research. During delivery a problem was identified (the under-usage of the online environment), the problem was then investigated, diagnosed, and solutions proposed. The team then discussed these solutions. One was selected, designed and developed, using the ESD framework shown in Figure 4.1, and then applied in practice, thus closing the first action research cycle.

Assumption 2:The modular architecture of VLEs is a desirable feature Traditionally, problems and barriers encountered by distance education students, such as the MA in ITM students, fall into several distinct categories (Galusha, 1997): costs and motivators, feedback and teacher contact, student support and services, alienation and isolation, lack of experience, and training. Of these, student support may be the most critical factor for the success of DE. Isolation, which results from the physical separation, different time schedules and diverse learning paces, is inherent in the distance learning model.Thus, support for distance learners should not be overlooked when


Figure 5.1 Examples of the NICLS WebCT environment designing and planning distance programmes, i.e. academic, pastoral, subject matter and technical assistance.The inclusion of e-learning approaches and technologies is perceived to be able to resolve some of these support and communication problems. The rise in the use of electronic Computer-Mediated Communication has been suggested to provide benefits for members of small groups in increasing the amount of communication and reducing social isolation in organisational and other settings. (Caldwell and Taha, 1993) In fact, as part of most VLEs, online communication has been seen to open up several new possibilities for enabling interactions among peers, tutors and academic staff. Communication is enabled by a range of simply implemented but powerful online capabilities such as e-mail, bulletin boards, chat


rooms and discussion groups. Lake (1999) proposes several modes of communication: one-way communication (tutor → students) through course notes and explicit knowledge web pages; two-way discussions (tutor ↔ students) through tutorial learning activities; and unstructured communication (tutor ↔ student ↔ student) either in informal asynchronous communication areas (‘Cafés’) or in private chat rooms. DE programme syllabi are usually arranged around a series of modules that have to be completed by students in order to attain the necessary number of credits.When translated into a VLE design, DE courses often have a modular architecture. Each module has its own individual web-based learning course environment and assigned tutors. Students jump from one course module to the next until they acquire the necessary credits. These module spaces are usually separate subject areas, with no direct connection.The MA in ITM was originally designed following this structure as discussed in the previous chapter. The consequence of this modular architecture is that students seem to lose a holistic view of the programme and the building of a course/learning community is made extremely difficult.This modular approach provides an ideal support for the first two types of communication described above – one-way and two-way – but a module Café is adequate to support informal and social communication only while undertaking a particular module. In fact, since students are regularly transferred from one module environment to the next, the socialising and study mechanisms (e.g. non module-specific topics, discussion threads, well known environments, link facilities) are constantly disrupted. Furthermore, students lack an overall anchoring space that binds the different modules, cohorts and tutors together. This situation was identified as a crucial problem by the academic team of the MA in ITM. During delivery of the first online WebCT supported modules, the team identified the need to provide a persistent overall course area for administrative support and general course and university information, as well as online peer-to-peer communication and socialising in a familiar setting.This resulted in the concept of virtual social space (VSS) presented in this section.

What is social space? The research team’s initial ideas as to what constituted a ‘social space’ centred on a number of assumptions. It is, in most instances, an area limited by its physical boundaries. It is a place where individuals can meet face-to-face (f2f) and interact in an informal manner. Usually, these areas are clearly demarcated from areas of formal work. However, participants could and usually do bring in elements of work if they want to. If the social space is a


physical area, it might be decorated in a way that reflects the unique identity of the group of individuals who use it. This perception of a social space is not easily transposed into a web-based virtual space. Lefebvre (1991), quoted by Wise (1997), presents three ways of thinking about space: spatial practice, representations of space, and representational space. ●

● ●

Spatial practice ‘embraces production and reproduction, and the particular locations and spatial sets characteristic of each social formation, in this case a DE learning community. Spatial practice ensures continuity and some degree of cohesion, and in this case a sense of belonging to a DE course and cohesion as members of the cohort of that course. Representations of space are abstract and conceptualised constructs, in this case a virtual environment supported by web technology. Representational space (or, better and more literally, spaces of representation) is ‘space as directly lived through its associated images and symbols, and hence the space of inhabitants and “users”’.

Therefore, and as noted by Wise (1997), a social space is perceived, conceived and lived by a community. In the case of the MA in ITM VSS, the need for this space was perceived by both staff and students, designed and conceived by the research team according to the perceived needs of students, and was subsequently lived by ITM students and tutors.

Design and development of the VSS The early design and structure of the VSS resulted from an MSc research project undertaken by Gilchrist (2000). The initial set of requirements was identified through a questionnaire sent to students. The questionnaire was split into four sections:‘Getting to Know You’,‘Social Scenes’,‘Comfort and Advice’, and ‘Logging On’.The first section acted as a gentle introduction to the questionnaire and consisted of background and demographic questions. The second section asked the respondents to think about the ways in which they had socially interacted with each other and to consider their attitudes towards their learning environment and their fellow students.The third section focused on their use of the existing student support system within the department. The final section asked them about their use of the university computer system and introduced them to the modus operandi of the research project. Through this questionnaire, Gilchrist (2000) identified the need for a number of elements perceived by the students to be important components of a VSS, namely: a Personal Portraits Gallery, a Chat Room, a Social Calendar, a Course News section, a Useful Contacts section and an Alumni section. These


elements were then grouped into three major VSS areas: a Work related area, a leisure (Play) area and a Retrospective look covering course advice and alumni. The VSS for the MA in ITM course was then developed using a prototyping approach. Prototyping can be defined as ‘building a physical working model of the proposed system, and using it to identify weaknesses in our understanding of the real requirements’ (Crinnion 1991:17).The initial VSS prototype was a working model and a first attempt to incorporate the elements outlined above into a web site.The prototype was built using WebCT (the VLE adopted by the University of Sheffield) and aimed at providing a representational space in which the students could socialise. The feedback obtained from testing this prototype was then used to develop it further.The architecture of this prototype is illustrated in Figure 5.2.

PLAY

WOR K Staff – student committee meeting minutes Useful contacts

RETROSPECTIVE Personal portraits gallery

Course news

Social space updates

Rules and regulations

Social calendar

Registration site

Chat room

Where are they now? Advice centre

Welcome page and site map

Rules and regulations

Password protected entrance

Figure 5.2 Virtual social space (VSS) architecture for the MA in ITM.


This initial work was then further developed with the help of the Learning Media Unit and evolved to the final VSS implementation.The home page, as illustrated in Figure 5.3, provides entry points into three main areas: the Work Zone, the Social Circle and the History Channel.The latter comprises the following main areas: Useful Academic Contacts, Course News, Course Information and Staff–Student Committee Meeting Minutes. The Work Zone, illustrated in Figure 5.4, was intended to allow students to obtain generic practical and administrative information relating to their studies, e.g. student handbook, dissertation handbook, departmental regulations, etc. This area should also provide students with useful contact details related to academic, social and other matters of interest to their academic lives. The Social Circle includes the Chat Room, Social Calendar, Useful Social Contacts and the Personal Portraits Gallery.The Personal Portraits Gallery is supported through the use of a generic student home page tool, provided by WebCT. Students can personalise their own space within this area. This facility allows students to establish their own identities within the social area, as well as enabling them to contribute actively and be involved with the VSS.

Figure 5.3 The VSS home page


Figure 5.4 The Work Zone The perceived need for a Chat Room was actually implemented by using the asynchronous WebCT bulletin board.The choice for an asynchronous solution was based on practical evidence that DE students tend to prefer this type of communication method. It is an area for the informal exchange of personal, social and course related information. Similarly, the Social Calendar was also implemented using a WebCT tool that facilitates the exchange of social event information among all students. Its functionality means that students can post their own social events in the calendar. It is another area that will allow the students to contribute and interact with the site. As part of the History Channel, the Advice Centre included in this area takes the form of a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQ) area in which students can ask questions and leave advice for future years. This serves two purposes. First, it enables the reification of experiences across cohorts of students, and second, it encourages new visitors to get involved with the site, as it is already inhabited (Chen, 1999). Finally the Where Are They Now? area is basically a set of alumni pages.Alumni are MA in ITM graduates of previous courses who provide information about their current positions and often report on the impact of the ITM programme in their careers. Designing the VSS for the MA in ITM was an excellent challenge to both tutors and students involved.The process encouraged the team to think broadly and research laterally about DE student experience, as well as to


question and mature a number of theoretical assumptions about collaborative and constructivist learning.

Conclusion The resolution of the conflict that arose from the use of designs based on the two initial assumptions discussed in this section, shows how action research can be used to identify, diagnose and overcome problems through smallscale research cycles.This confirms the experiential learning nature of action research, discussed in Chapter 2, and corroborates views held by proponents of this type of research methodology, i.e. that it is extremely useful in resolving problems arising from educational practice and delivery. Whilst giving support for the use of action research, this approach, based on resolving specific and localised problems within course delivery, could also justify fears of action research critics as discussed in Chapter 2. In fact, if the results of the different action research cycles are not analysed using a holistic view, there is a danger that conceptual and theoretical stances are not questioned or changed. Tutor training

NICLS module Tutor training Web CT WebCT module 1 Module

V S S

Tutor training WebCT module 2 Tutor training

. . .

Tutor training Tutor delivery and support

WebCT module x

Alumni involvement

Figure 5.5 MA in ITM revised implementation model


In the case of the MA in ITM tackling the two assumptions proposed resulted in the development of the NICLS induction course and the VSS. In conjunction with the realisation that inexperienced online learning tutors face exactly the same problems, difficulties and anxieties as students, the course team was confronted with the necessity of reviewing the ITM implementation model shown in Figure 4.3. In fact, the modular course conceptualisation based on an untried view of online learning was clearly not adequate. Consequently, a new course model for this type of continuing professional education was developed to take into account the three factors discussed.This is shown in Figure 5.5. In addition to the NICLS course and a horizontal VSS, the model in Figure 5.5 also included a facility to support tutors’ training needs.This facility is intended to be a self-contained and selfdirected learning resource, available to tutors at any time during the delivery of the programme. Nevertheless, it was decided that inexperienced tutors should always be required to take an induction course before the start of their respective module.This clearly shows that action research can not only be used to support diagnosis of specific and localised problems, but also to generate high-level conceptualisation and to support theoretical thinking and innovation.

Chapter 6

Evaluation This chapter discusses the role of evaluation processes in educational research in general and in action research in particular. Evaluation processes are seen as embedded in the action research model and must include formative, summative and follow-up investigation of the impact of participating in the programme undertaken. This chapter will discuss methods and examples of such evaluation processes. According to Vickery (1973:24), evaluation means estimating how the behaviour or performance of a system or subsystem compares with its ostensible function. This author distinguishes two main aspects to evaluation: effectiveness and efficiency. In relation to educational applications, effectiveness involves evaluating if the system actually supports the requirements of the educational setting and learning needs. For any given level of effectiveness, it is also necessary to assess efficiency: with what expenditure of time, equipment, additional technical and pedagogical support, or overall cost, the educational function is fulfilled (Nunes, 1999). Thus, in educational settings and according to Thorpe (1990:5), evaluation is the collection, analysis and interpretation of information about any aspect of a programme of education and training, as part of a recognised process of judging its effectiveness, its efficiency and any other outcomes it may have. Tyler (1949:106), in Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, identifies two important aspects of evaluation. First, evaluation must examine how learners perform in curriculum-based learning activities and on assessments. Second, it is important that educators perform ‘more than a single appraisal at any one time’ to determine if the curriculum is effective. Tyler (1949) notes that it is necessary to ‘make an appraisal at an early point and at later points to identify changes that may be occurring’. 100

Evaluation

101

Evaluation, which should not be confused with assessment – assessment is an integral part of the programme and although part of evaluation, should not be considered as evaluation per se – could be further elaborated as a process with the following characteristics: ● ● ● ●

inclusiveness – all activities related to the learning process should be monitored and analysed (Lewis, 1985); component activities – usually evaluation is composed of three components: data collection, analysis and interpretation; planned activities – these can provide useful feedback and remedial action into the programme whenever needed; both intended and unintended effects – scope of evaluation should not be limited to the overt objectives of a programme, but should include any unintended effects and occurrences (Thorpe, 1990:5).

In terms of educational informatics research, evaluation means assessing learning outcomes as set against learning objectives drawn for a specific research question.As an example, in designing a particular online learning environment, the educational effectiveness of the ICT-based application produced would be evaluated using the theory developed. Hence, the purpose of evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of the learning resources designed and developed, their educational worth, and at which points and in what ways the educational systems design may be improved. However, this process of evaluation cannot be seen as definitive in its first instance, since no educational course environment, resources or materials can be perfect in its initial incarnation. In truth, as defended by Nunes (1999), it is only through an iterative and persistent process of evaluation, review and revision of educational programmes and materials that educators will be able to address ever-changing student needs and requirements and strive for excellence.According to Tessmer (1993), this evaluation process of an online learning setting should address such disparate points as: clarity, ease of use, feedback quality, content accuracy, user interface, integration with the learning environment and quality of the learning experience. Hence, and as proposed by Newman and Lamming (1995:207), the primary aims of conducting evaluation of online learning environments is to expose the evolving prototype environments to a wide variety of realistic forms of usage, and to give evaluators a chance to observe this usage thoroughly. Both of these aspects of evaluation require time, since tutors and learners must adapt to the new environment, and evaluators must gather sufficient data for a proper analysis. User-based evaluations are possibly the best way of identifying errors and misconceptions that users have in the process of using a particular piece of software. (Cockerton and Shimell, 1997)


The requirement for realistic forms of tutor and learner exploration and interaction with and through the online learning environment, suggests that evaluation should be carried out with real users. The most realistic, and so most helpful, formative evaluation would use real students in their normal learning situation.This is likely to increase the time for the whole cycle of production, testing, and modification. Feedback to developers from other sites who are early users of the material is a helpful substitute that gets round this constraint. Although this practice really means that users are running poorly tested software, and in effect doing the testing that producers should have done themselves, it is better than having no way of catching problems and improving the software. (Draper et al., 1996) Standard experiments, including asking or paying students to try out materials for next year, are mostly flawed since their motivational structure is markedly different from other situations, and in particular the educational situation. (Draper et al., 1996) Therefore, using real learners in real learning situations in the evaluation processes suggests that an action research approach is desirable or even the most appropriate methodology to use.Action research is situational and is concerned with addressing problems in specific contexts. Unlike other methods, no attempt is made to identify one particular factor and study it in isolation, divorced from the context giving it meaning (Cohen and Manion, 1995:192).This means that ideally, the step-by-step process is constantly monitored over varying periods of time using a variety of methods, such as questionnaires, diaries and interviews (Cohen and Manion, 1995:192).This makes action research very different from applied research. Both utilize the scientific method. Since applied research is concerned mainly with establishing relationships and testing theories, it is quite rigorous in its application of the conditions of this method. To this end, therefore, it insists on: studying a large number of cases; establishing as much control as possible over variables; precise sampling techniques; and a serious concern to generalize its findings to comparable situations. It does not claim to contribute directly to the solution of problems. Action research, by contrast, interprets the scientific method much more loosely, chiefly because its focus is a specific problem in a specific setting. The emphasis is not so much on obtaining generalizable scientific knowledge as on precise knowledge for a particular situation and purpose. (Cohen and Manion, 1995:187)

Evaluation

103

However, action research is not prescriptive in terms of evaluation processes. Different strategies and methods must therefore be selected and used, sometimes in combination. In fact, numerous evaluation methodologies can be employed, as discussed by Oliver and Conole (1998), Newman and Lamming (1995:189–214), de Vaus (1996) and Rowland (1994), which use what are known as summative, formative and situated approaches and a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate online learning environments. Discussing, comparing and synthesising all these methodologies in depth would fall outside the scope of this book. However, since evaluation is at the core of action research, no publication attempting to discuss this subject can avoid discussing evaluation strategies and methods, even if briefly.

Evaluation strategies There are several different recognised methods for evaluation (Nunes, 1999:164; Thorpe, 1990:7;Werdelin, 1977:167): formative, summative and situated/participative. Summative evaluation, which until the 1960s was the preferred method, focuses on evaluation at the completion of the learning process. It is primarily concerned with the quality and effectiveness of a completed educational programme, tested against its aims and objectives. Summative evaluation is typically used to assess the overall quality of the final product (rather than the different processes that occur during design and delivery), its suitability for particular types of tasks and categories of user, and how well it compares with other products (Barker, 1993:184).Thus, this type of evaluation is often comparative and usually assesses if new materials are better than those in use before (Tessmer, 1993). Summative evaluation investigates and compares designs in a range of applications (Barker and King, 1993; Baumgartner and Payr, 1996) or to compare different technologies, e.g. to compare hypertext with textbooks and conventional lectures (Smeaton, 1991). However, in order to actually influence the design of online learning environments and their use by learners and tutors during learning activities, evaluation must be carried out at frequent intervals (Newman and Lamming, 1995:191). In terms of the design and improvement of instruction, this method was similar to locking the stable door after the horse had bolted, since the materials were already completed and disseminated, and could only be revised if a new version was designed. (Tessmer, 1993:12) Formative evaluation, on the other hand and as the term suggests, focuses on evaluation of educational programmes, environments and materials during design, development and delivery, that is, during formative periods. In formative evaluation, the purpose is not only to assess whether materials and approaches have been successful, but more to identify problems, weaknesses and emerging needs that may improve the online learning programme in the near future.


The term ‘formative’ may suggest that such evaluation of any new learning materials should only need to take place during the early developmental stages. This is not the case, and authors such as Nunes (1999:165), Thiagarajan (1991), Tessmer (1993) and Newman and Lamming (1995:190) propose that this type of evaluation should take place throughout the design, development and delivery of online learning and, therefore, should be seen rather as a lifetime formative process. The purpose of formative evaluation is thus to inform the design and delivery processes, to test decisions that have been made, and to assist in making new decisions (Newman and Lamming, 1995:190). In the short term, formative evaluation is used to improve a newly developed or developing learning environment before its productive use, whereas in the long term, formative evaluation is the continual revision and review process that takes place during the span of use of the learning environment by learners and tutors. However, formative evaluation may still be performed by detached researchers using traditional evaluation methods such as observation or interviews. Action researchers are nevertheless embedded in the actual learning process and cannot and should not be detached from this context.Therefore, a new approach is often used that contextualises formative evaluation: situated evaluation.This type of evaluation was first proposed by Bruce and Rubin (1993) and may be defined as follows: Situated evaluation is an evaluation method that analyses the use of an innovation across contexts.The evaluation focused on the innovation-in-use, and its primary purpose is to evaluate the different ways in which the innovation is realised.This new term is used to emphasise the unique characteristics of each situation in which the innovation is used. Bruce and Rubin (1993:203) Situated evaluation is a method that analyses the learning process within its context. The primary purpose of this method is to explain why a particular online learning environment was used the way it was, to analyse the results of using it, to identify similarities and differences between strategies of use (for example, using the same application for flexible and for distance learning projects), to improve designs and delivery strategies, to devise and sometimes take remedial actions, and finally, to identify variables for further evaluation.

Evaluation methods It is generally assumed that evaluation is the application of research methods to elucidate a problem of action. (Norris, 1990: 97)

Evaluation

105

A range of different tools and methods are available for conducting the different types of evaluation of online learning environments.These vary in sophistication from informal review techniques to controlled experiments involving pre-test and post-test activities (Barker, 1993:184). Both qualitative and quantitative data may be collected. Qualitative methods provide rich information that is especially useful for informing decisions concerning design and delivery. Qualitative data often offers a better indicator of learner and tutor satisfaction or frustration. Anecdotal evidence is sometimes better understood by evaluators and is quite revealing of underlying emotions, feelings and problems. Qualitative [methods] … look not so much for ‘causes’ as for ‘meanings’, rejecting the natural science model and seeing the task of social research as uncovering the meaning of social events and processes, based upon understanding the lived experience of human society from the actors’ point of view. (Bryman, 1984, in Finch, 1986:7) By contrast, quantitative information gives hard figures based on systematic sampling and provides a more objective measure, but may lack the richness of insight provided by qualitative information. Hence, in many cases a ‘judicious’ mixture of the two types of information will provide the best insight (Boyle, 1997:199). This is the case of the hybrid style of evaluation presented by Atkins (1994), which uses both quantitative and qualitative methods to complement each other, with additional cross-checking to improve confidence in results.

Data collection methods According to Cohen et al. (2002:237), in conducting action research the participants can be both methodologically eclectic and can use a range of instruments for data collection.There are a variety of methods in common use, as proposed by Cohen et al. (2000:237), Knussen et al. (1991), Hopkins (1985) and McKernan (1991): ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

systematic and participative observation; self-report techniques; questionnaires; diaries and field notes; interviews; automated methods; psychometric tests; design guidelines and checklists; purpose-designed evaluation experiments.


In terms of action research, some of these methods are particularly important. Learning journals and research diaries, for instance, are useful as tools for recording researchers’ reflections of their practice.They usually provide an accurate description and reflection of the learning activities and events as they are experienced by the researcher. As such, these written accounts of practice are strongly advocated by proponents of action research. Nevertheless, the process of subjecting personal introspections to rigorous analysis may prove to be a daunting prospect, and in some cases may create a certain degree of artificiality in the diary entries. Furthermore, this method of research may also sometimes lead the researcher into a naïve and anecdotal vein that, for all its purported honesty and integrity, fails to achieve much of an impact. Another important and very common data collection method in action research is observation. This method is used to study processes, roles and relationships, cultures and contexts. There are a number of issues to consider here: the objective of the observation; the subject under observation; the stance, position and even bias of the observer and the manner in which the observation is recorded and described. The role of the observer will also be affected by the degree of his/her involvement in the learning process being observed, i.e. participant versus non-participant observation. Finally, the degree to which other learners and tutors are aware that they are being observed, i.e., covert versus overt observation, may affect individuals’ behaviours and responses. Interviewing can be an enormously effective way of exploring the experiences of others and generating new interpretations and illuminations of the social world. It can offer one perspective of a span of time, particularly if a personal life-story approach is used, and can take many forms from the conversational to the more formal ‘question and answer with set options’ format. Sometimes observation and diaries may not be sufficient to understanding the whole learning situation. In this case, questionnaires and interviews may be used as complementary data collection methods. Interviews need to be carefully planned and skilfully conducted in order to ensure that all the required data is collected and influencing or biasing the interviewees is avoided. Similarly, questionnaires need to be carefully designed and piloted, in order to ensure that the required data is elicited and that respondents are able to respond in the way they wish. These two methods are often used in combination. For instance, interviews may be used in an open-ended way during the early stages of use of a particular online learning environment, in order to identify key issues and problems. Questionnaires may then be used at later stages of the exploration of that online learning environment in order to gather information from a larger constituent learner representation. Having completed and analysed the results from a large learner population survey, researchers might then go on to do selective interviews in order to obtain some anecdotal evidence, which may well provide a more meaningful picture of some rather dry facts.

Evaluation

107

A framework for evaluating online courses All the above methods have been successfully used to evaluate traditional face-toface courses as well as online learning programmes. However, as Benigno and Trentin (2000) note, while online education processes share a number of common characteristics with face-to-face courses, the very fact that they are delivered through ICT means that there are a number of new variables to assess and evaluate. The concept of the learning environment needs to be re-examined, mainly due to the fact that the online setting is no longer based at one physical location where participants gather periodically, but rather is composed of a virtual learning environment built on a central server. A number of other issues such as social aspects of online interaction, networked learning processes, online learning resources and online learning environments must also be taken into consideration when evaluating online learning. Any programme with a considerable online element has the need to clearly identify, understand and evaluate factors such as those identified by McPherson and Nunes (2001): ● ● ● ● ●

the course setting; the course materials; learner participation; learner’s goal achievement; learner’s satisfaction and individual progress.

Consequently, an evaluation framework is required that encompasses all the above, using the different evaluation strategies and methods described earlier.

Basis of the evaluation framework When evaluating an online programme, it is necessary to devise an explicit set of objectives that encompasses all the elements composing the learning environment, as proposed by McPherson and Nunes (2001): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Measurement of achievement of objectives of the programme as a whole. Evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of the course materials provided. Evaluation of the tutoring and support provided to the learners. Measurement of the quality of the learning experience. Evaluation of the online environment. Evaluation of eventual f2f elements. Measurement of achievement of student expectations and goals.

Objectives 1 and 7 can easily be evaluated using summative processes. Objectives 2, 4 and 6 are best reviewed by the use of formative methods. Objectives 3 and 5 can be best analysed using situated evaluation (McPherson and Nunes, 2001).


The effort of trying to combine these different approaches within one evaluation process of one programme requires the formulation of a clear rationale.This rationale must allow for the complementary nature of the different methods, as well as provide a coherent and holistic view of the evaluation process. Such a rationale for the MA in ITM case study is illustrated at the end of this chapter. Paramount for the design of this rationale is the specific learning environment that supports the course.

The influence of an ICT-based learning environment The explosion of the Internet has not only expanded learning opportunities but also removed physical boundaries that long limited access to both tutors and learning resources.This is mainly due to the fact that the web provides users with a uniform and convenient means of accessing the vast resources of the Internet, but is also due to the contribution of telecommunication and CMC developments, such as electronic mail (e-mail), bulletin boards, chat facilities, co-authoring tools, audio-conferencing, and even computer-based video conferencing. This wide availability of Internet access in HE has prompted many tutors to incorporate online tools as supporting elements of their regular courses. In fact, and very early on, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the US Congress (1988), quoted by Sherry (1996), defended the view that ‘teachers have to be allowed to choose, willing to make choices, and qualified to implement their choices effectively’.The OTA further stated that, just as there is no one best use of technology, there is no one best way of facilitating learning with technology. Flexibility should be encouraged, allowing tutors to develop their personal approaches utilising the variety of options offered by technology (Bruce and Shade, 1994). Since the 1990s, it was clear that for educationalists, the web would provide exciting new opportunities for innovative practice. Thus, in order to support online learning environments, a number of integrated virtual learning environments (VLEs) have emerged. These are becoming commonly used online educational environments, using a common interface to integrate development tools for learning materials as well as course management tools. The new VLEs provide features that enable educationalists to develop environments by adapting pre-designed components and implementing different types of communication interaction according to desired learning outcomes. As discussed in Chapter 2, these interactions may be characterised as follows: ● ● ●

learner with the learning materials; learner with tutor; learner with other learners.

Additionally, VLEs provide a set of online management tools that assist tutors in designing courses as well as in keeping track of student activity and progress such as:

Evaluation ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

109

learner visits to the learning environment; learner participation in online activities; learner feedback about the learning experience; learner support and scaffolding; learner attitudes about learning through distance education; overall learner satisfaction towards distance learning; learner outcomes such as grades and test scores.

Typical elements of VLEs are: ● ●

●

A presentation tool – this allows the course designer to determine the layout, colours, text, counters, etc. for the course pages. A set of student tools – these can be integrated into any course and include communication tools (conferencing system, chat and e-mail), student evaluation and self-evaluation tools (online, automatically marked quizzes, and content-related multiple choice questions), a searchable image archive, a course calendar tool, a linkable glossary database, student collaboration and presentation areas, student content annotation, student home-page generation, course navigation, indexing and searching tools, account administration tools, and more. A set of administrative tools – these aid in the delivery of a course and include student progress tracking, course access tracking, a categorised question database and online quiz creation tool (with historical statistics on performance and automatic marking), a questionnaire delivery and report tool, student access control, grade maintenance and reporting tool, and more (Goldberg and Salari, 1997).

This set of administrative tools is particularly useful in the evaluation process and therefore poses both benefits and constraints in the formulation of the evaluation rationale, particularly in relationship to evaluation objectives 2, 3 and 5 set out in the previous section of this chapter. In sum,VLEs can be used to create entire online courses, or simply to publish materials to supplement existing courses. They provide a set of educational tools that can easily be incorporated into any course, and provide a set of administrative tools that assist the educationalist in the task of course administration. It is especially important for learners using VLE-supported environments to take advantage of time- and location-independent access to their learning resource. An evaluation framework, as proposed for the MA in ITM and described in our case study, allows both tutors and learners to be actively involved in course development and delivery, and results in a highly motivated staff and satisfied cohort of learners.This process enables both research-led teaching via the research work and scholarship of the staff and practice-led teaching coming from the input of learners, alumni and employers.


The MA in ITM Case Study The MA in ITM online learning evaluation MA in ITM Evaluation Strategy As discussed before, the MA in ITM is a flexible part-time programme, delivered principally via distance learning, that makes use of WebCT as the course VLE. Consequently, this course is multi-faceted and requires an integrated approach to evaluation as proposed earlier in this chapter. The conjugation of a distance learning facet with an online learning delivery element means that, as discussed, there is a need to clearly identify, understand and evaluate two main factors: 1 2

Overall ITM programme. Individual module syllabus, structure and delivery mode, including: ● ● ● ●

online course materials; learner participation; learner’s goal achievement; learner’s satisfaction and individual progress.

Therefore, when implementing the proposed evaluation framework, the following set of explicit objectives was established: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Measurement of achievement of objectives of the ITM programme as a whole. Evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of individual module material provided. Evaluation of overall provision and delivery style of these materials. Evaluation of the tutoring and support provided to the students within individual modules. Measurement of the quality of the learning experience at both module and programme level. Evaluation of the online environment at both module and programme level. Evaluation of the day schools (two full days per module). Measurement of achievement of student expectations and goals.

In an effort to achieve these objectives and combine the necessary evaluation methods an evaluation rationale was devised as follows: ●

Objectives 1 and 8 are accomplished using summative evaluation.

Evaluation

● ●

111

Objectives 2, 3, 5 and 7 are better attained through formative evaluation. Objectives 4 and 6 are achieved through situated evaluation.

Ongoing formative evaluation throughout the programme As a general delivery strategy, students are in constant contact with their module tutors, and are encouraged to express their views on the learning materials and activities provided.This feedback is then used to improve both the following units and modules in the course. Students are also encouraged to make tutors aware of any problems or difficulties incurred during their interaction with the learning materials. This feedback is discussed by the course team in regular steering committee meetings, which are attended by all tutors, module coordinators and the programme coordinator. The focus is on learning and teaching issues rather than student progress and marks per se, i.e. discussion of student progress, effectiveness of learning materials, proposals for improvement, etc. Marks and assessment in general are discussed in exam boards. Additionally, feedback questionnaires are requested from the student after completing each unit (a module is composed of twelve units, equating to twelve two-hour f2f lectures). Students are given the opportunity to express their views on the learning materials and activities provided.This feedback is then used to improve both subsequent units and subsequent modules in the course. Students are also encouraged to make tutors aware of any problems or difficulties incurred during their interaction with the learning materials.

Example of useful unit feedback: Q. Do you have any constructive suggestions for improvements to this unit [The Information Systems Plan, Systems Management and IT module, 5 July 2000]? A. No – good summary. Two items which should be considered: Robson,W. (1997) Strategic Management & Information Systems (2nd edn) would be a very good recommended course text.

Similarly, day schools, which are held twice during the delivery of every module, provide an additional opportunity to collect valuable feedback from students. At the end of each day school, students are given a short and open questionnaire whereby they can express their opinions on content, delivery and usefulness of the day school.


Example of useful day school feedback: Q. What improvements could be made [to the Day School, Friday 28 June 1996]? A. I felt the session after the morning’s presentations was very useful, i.e. when each of the presentations was analysed and discussed. Although there is no such thing as a ‘right answer’, it is important to discuss where ideas fall short or conversely where they were well made.

This formative evaluation allows course tutors and coordinators to measure the quality and effectiveness of the learning experience and to take remedial action during the actual delivery period and without having to wait for the summative evaluation at the end of the module.This degree of flexibility is highly appreciated by students and they perceive it as giving them an active voice in their programme of study. This ensures student ownership over their learning process and a more active involvement of tutors.

Figure 6.1 Example of WebCT student tracking usage

Evaluation

113

Situated evaluation of the online environment and learning materials Making use of WebCT administration facilities allows tutors to monitor student presence, participation and progress. Students who are deemed to be unforthcoming can be contacted electronically on a one-to-one basis and receive support with any difficulties they are facing. Occasionally, specific materials may not be visited by students, thus highlighting deficiencies in either learning material design, navigational structures or even in the interest of these materials to students.This may lead to different remedial approaches ranging from simply removing the noninteresting materials to the formulation of tutoring strategies aiming at motivating students to visit them. The advantage of situated evaluation is that both student absenteeism and these deficiencies can be detected and whenever possible remedied in time to achieve the aims and objectives of the module.

Summative evaluation of modules and of the programme as a whole Summative evaluation is performed at the end of each module as well as at the end of the entire programme. At the end of each module, students are given a comprehensive questionnaire. They are asked to criticise anonymously both content and delivery of the module.This feedback is used for the regular update and improvement of the modules. At the end of the programme, the students are given an opportunity to comment on the global quality of the course and their learning experience and to give a measurement of the achievement of their own goals and expectations. Furthermore, they are asked to provide an indication of the positive and negative aspects of the programme as a whole.

14

The amount of material/content presented was:

12 10

The amount of material/content which was new to you was:

8 6 4

The interest of the material/content was:

2 0 Too much

Very little

Figure 6.2 Example of useful module feedback


Follow-up evaluation of impact of the course on alumni work experience After a period of three years, alumni are sent a follow-up questionnaire in order to allow them to assess the impact of the programme on their professional careers and provide feedback on improvements that could have been made to their experience in hindsight.

Example of useful follow-up feedback: Q. What are the benefits of doing the MA in ITM? A. […] I have been offered and accepted a job as Director of IT for Embassy CES, the USA subsidiary of a Daily Mail Trust Group Company. I will be based in Fort Lauderdale but will have responsibility for all sites in North America, and will also establish new sites in South America, starting in Rio. Thanks for your support during the 3 years and will you pass on my regards to people at the reunion in August.

Specific problem evaluation – an example Action research often requires more precise evaluation strategies for diagnosed problems or proposed solutions. In fact, the general strategy highlighted above may not be sufficient to evaluate very specific problems. In these cases, specific evaluation projects need to be planned and implemented in addition to the general evaluation methods. In the case of the virtual social space (VSS) discussed in the previous chapter, early signs showed that despite a very high initial interest by the students, this facility was under-used. Students visited the site at regular intervals, but only a small group of first year students really made use of it as a social space. Furthermore, closer investigation showed that other students, who did not have the VSS available from the start of their courses, had already created parallel communication channels (e.g. e-mail lists and Yahoo clubs), which they kept as their favourite socialisation vehicle. In fact, although having expressed an initial interest in such a facility, these students continued to use their familiar CMC environments. Further investigation was therefore required in order to establish the reasons for this apparent lack of success of a feature that had inspired so much initial interest from students.

Evaluation

115

The evaluation methodology The evaluation methodology chosen was a summative approach using an indepth questionnaire as the main data collection tool. The questionnaire was designed to include closed and open questions, in order to allow the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data. The research team decided to provide all current students enrolled in the MA in ITM with the opportunity to provide a response. This effectively translated to a possible sample group of 34 students. In order to ensure student collaboration and interest in this evaluation process, the researchers met each year group during one of their on-campus day schools. Students were asked what their preferred mode of response was (e-mail, web form or paper-based) and a verbal participation contract was then established. Having identified that students overwhelmingly favoured to respond via e-mail, preferred addresses were collected. Those who provided e-mail addresses were subsequently e-mailed with details of the project and a clear statement that their participation in the project was voluntary and anonymous and would in no way prejudice their studies. These confidentiality arrangements, which would be used during the life of the research project, were made absolutely clear: the only researcher who had a complete overview of the entirety of the data was from a different university (RMIT, Australia) and unrelated to the course. The questionnaire was developed in three distinct sections under the following headings: ‘Demographic Data’, ‘Understanding the Social Networks that Support Learning’ and ‘The Virtual Social Space Site’. The latter was broken into four components: an overall exploration of the students’ use of the VSS and three separate sections that explored the respondents’ use of its different components – the Work Zone, the Social Circle and the History Channel. In designing the questionnaire, it was decided to use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in order to explore the volume and nature of student social contacts. This approach strengthened the overall evaluation design (Darlington and Scott, 2002).The demographic data section contained questions that sought not only standard demographic information but also information about students’ use of the Internet for both social and work/study related purposes. The students’ reasons for choosing this mode of study were also explored.The remaining two sections of the questionnaire contained questions relating to students’ social contact with one another and their use of the VSS. It was decided that the evaluation questionnaire should specifically explore students’ social interaction and the possibility that they had developed parallel social networks independent of the VSS.This would allow the research team to draw some conclusions about the importance or otherwise


of social contact between the students and had implications for the evaluation of the VSS. If students had no contact with each other, or believed there was no value in having social contact with each other, then obviously their use of the VSS would be low. Effectively both the qualitative and quantitative data from the questionnaire was analysed using Neuman’s (2000) successive approximation method of qualitative data analysis.This involves drawing out key themes from the data by allowing for the successive coding and recoding of data. As Neuman (2000) suggests, each pass through the evidence allows the concepts to remain abstract, while being ‘rooted in the concrete evidence and reflecting the context’.The quantitative components of the questionnaire were simply tallied and used as part of the analysis of themes, clarifying patterns of Internet use and their relationship to social contact and use of the VSS.This method of analysis was also aided by the design of the questionnaire, which steered respondents through a series of questions that allowed them to reflect and then build on their own responses. As such, the final ‘Any other comments?’ question often yielded a very reflective understanding of student use of the VSS as well as the importance of social contact in the learning process. Discussion of findings The total number of surveys returned was 16 (out of 34), representing a surprisingly high return rate of 47.06 per cent. Of these 16 respondents, seven were male and nine were female; they formed a representative sample, both in terms of age breakdown (as shown in Table 6.1) and cohort depiction (as illustrated in Table 6.2). Table 6.1 Survey respondents: student distribution by age Age band 50

Distribution 4 4 1 4 3

Evaluation

117

Table 6.2 Survey respondents: student distribution by year of study Year of study

Distribution

1st year 2nd year 3rd year

3 out of possible 9 6 out of possible 12 7 out of possible 13

The analysis of the social contact with other students revealed that very few students actually visit the campus other than for day schools (four out of 16). However, it is clear that the social aspect of learning was maintained: ten out of 16 students had regular contact with another student on matters unrelated to the course. Furthermore, 13 out of 16 regularly used e-mail or phone to talk to one another. The same number of students actually met face-to-face (f2f) to socialise outside the day school programme. The significance of the socialising aspect was confirmed by these students when asked to ascribe importance to social contact with other students in the programme: of the 13 yes respondents, 11 believed social contact was important. Of the three who stated they had no contact with other students, two believed social contact was not important, but one was ambivalent.The preferred means of communication with other students was clearly e-mail (15 out of 16 were regular uses of e-mail for social purposes), although most added they also used a bulletin board. In terms of contact with tutors, all students preferred e-mail contact. In terms of understanding the VSS itself, 13 students stated they had visited the site at least once. Of the three that had never visited, one was just not interested, a second did not feel it was relevant and the third stated: ‘I find the Internet extremely slow from home in the evenings so I would tend to use e-mail from work. Probably because of this I just don’t think about using it’ (Respondent 02_2). Of the 13 students that had visited the VSS, four could not see how this type of environment would be of use to them and soon lost interest. One had a lot of technical issues in entering WebCT in general and therefore never got past first base. Seven expressed disappointment that there was little or no activity occurring when they visited and therefore felt little incentive to return. Of these seven, most felt frustrated that it was always the same group of people contributing. Curiously, all 13 suggested that some sort of incentive was needed to encourage greater use of the VSS. The importance of social support networks for students Overwhelmingly, students who responded to this survey believed that the social contact they had with one another supported them in the learning process. Seventy-five per cent of those surveyed believed that the social


contact they experienced was important. Analysis of their comments indicated this occurred in two ways: ●

●

Support related directly to course-based learning activities or assignments – some students suggested that when it came to completing learning tasks or assessments, they contacted other students and established a social connection in order to confirm their own understanding of the content. Respondent 02_3 summed up the general feeling by suggesting that the social contact ‘offered good reassurance factors at critical points in the course, i.e. normally before hand-in of assignments’. Support by sharing similar experiences, anxieties and problems – this second theme was more ephemeral in nature. It would best be described as students feeling that they had a sense of connection with each other, a sense of shared experience, a feeling that others knew what they were going through. As Respondent 03_2 suggests, the social contact ‘was very helpful in providing support and just reminding me that everyone is in the same situation and that it is not impossible – as it sometimes seems’. Respondent 07_3 also conveys this sense of connection, but also sees these personal connections remaining active and important after graduating from the course: [social contact provides] support and motivation. Drives you to keep going and also to have a good moan occasionally. Helps to share ideas in particular, but also to meet a new friend and create a good friendship that hopefully will last beyond the course. It may also be useful in terms of career development and support. (Respondent 07_3)

Of the four respondents who didn’t believe that social contact was important, three also stated that they ‘preferred studying alone’ when asked what the main reason was for them choosing a distance learning course.This suggests a more independent learning style and probably a resistance to social contact with other students. Students’ preference for e-mail While a number of students commented on their lack of skills relating to CMC facilities such as chat and discussion boards, all respondents used email regularly. Fifteen of the 16 respondents (93 per cent) used e-mail to maintain social contact with friends and relatives. On average, respondents sent 13 e-mails a week that they defined as ‘social’.This high level of e-mail usage in their personal and professional lives also defined their preferred

Evaluation

119

method of communication with each other in their student life. In fact, and as stated above, 15 of the 16 respondents confirmed that e-mail was their preferred method of communication with other students and tutors. Again, when asked how they might resolve a concern related to course content, all respondents answered that they would e-mail either a fellow student or the tutor. Two of the respondents reinforced this opinion by adding that they might post a question on the discussion board if they felt their question might relate to or be of use to other students. Given these students’ overwhelming preference of e-mail, it is now evident that the communication tools provided within the VSS, namely the discussion board, the chat room and the social calendar, were of little additional value to their existing methods of developing social support networks.

Possible reasons for low use of the VSS While a number of students commented that, prompted by this questionnaire, they had gone back into the VSS and found ‘lots of interesting and useful stuff ’ (Respondent 06_1), it was obvious that this facility did not play a central role in the development of their social contacts. In fact, four key themes emerged from the data. First, as previously stated, most students developed their social contact with each other via e-mail, this being a generalised and established method of communication for them. No extra effort was required to understand, learn and operate different CMC facilities.The second key theme was that the VSS was not integrated into the rest of their study programme.This was actually a design decision to differentiate it from the individual module environments. However, as students had to remember consciously to access this additional site, many felt there was just no incentive to go there.Typical comments were as follows: If we knew that this was ‘the place’ to obtain the information and everything was available through a single access point then it would be used more. The current arrangement seems a little fragmented and I tend to go to the message board for the current module only. (Respondent 05_2) I think the idea is excellent and it is a very appropriate tool for distance-learning students. However, as per my comments above about the Work Zone, unless you provide students with a real incentive to visit, they won’t bother! Maybe vital pieces of information (assignment


titles? Day school info?) could be posted there – students could then be emailed an alert to tell us that new information is available with perhaps a link to the relevant login page.This would increase visits! (Respondent 04_3) I think assignment titles and info should be posted here and not handed out on hard copies – this would mean that students would have a real incentive to visit the space.At the moment it’s just an ‘added extra’ and certainly in my case I really don’t go there unless somebody is hounding me to! (Respondent 07_3) The third key theme that was overwhelming amongst those who had visited the VSS in the first few months of its operation, was that few people were in the space when they visited and therefore few contributions were made to the space. This led to a feeling that no one used it: as Respondent 01_3 commented, ‘There is an inertia thing; no-one uses it so no-one uses it’. It was clear that many of the respondents visited on a few occasions, but weren’t sure what to do next, got no response or feedback from messages posted, or saw no activity that convinced them others were making use of the space.This resulted in a sense of frustration for many of the respondents: I found that some were just ‘listeners’ or ‘lurkers’. In the early days I was one of the more prolific posters and I really wanted to make it work, but after a while I felt as though I was talking to myself and lost heart in it. – I have not used any of the online areas this final year. (Respondent 06_3) The fourth key theme, and possibly the most significant, related to the type of students involved with this course: part-time students with full-time personal and professional lives.This implies a general lack of time for anything beyond the bare essentials in their studies: I don’t think I would use it. I find it difficult finding time to do everything I have to do without using the facility. (Respondent 02_2) I don’t find it of value to the academic nature of the course. I have clear ideas about what I want to achieve and believe these to be met through

Evaluation

121

study rather than an exchange of ideas in the way that the VSS facilitates. As a distance learner I am not on the course to gain further social contacts and as such don’t really find enough time to just ‘hang out’ in the VSS. That is, I work hard and late, I have studies to do and somewhere fit in a social life. This schedule does not leave time to engage in VSS’ing. (Respondent 03_1)

The point made by this last respondent is actually quite significant. In contrast with full-time, on-campus students, the MA in ITM students have their own established and usually rich social networks that are not necessarily compatible with the creation of a new learning community: My cultural space involves family, work colleagues, work contacts, friends, neighbours, the office, the gym, the holiday home, etc., many of which share the same cultural space. I also have another more distant section of my cultural space and that is the students on the ITM course, which is not shared by any other person within my own cultural zone. [….] There is also the time element – I have (and consequently my partner has) given up a lot of actual social time to do these studies. It goes against the grain for me (but particularly for my partner) to swap this for virtual social time! (Respondent 06_3)

VSS evaluation conclusions In sum, the VSS, a conceptually appealing idea that is well supported by the literature, was of little use to the students. Clearly, they expected that this space would be popular, dynamic and changing, but due to the nature of the cohort, visits were sparse and finding anybody online was unlikely: The VSS as a social space is akin to sitting alone in a bar with no atmosphere drinking diet Tango and, just before you leave, jot a cryptic message to say that you have been there on a post it note and stick it on the fruit machine – a bit sad really. (Respondent 02_3)


Numerous authors have commented on the need for educators to model appropriate behaviour for students in online learning environments, whether it be in order to promote discussion within groups, to develop learning communities or to engender a sense of trust with and between students in order to facilitate learning (Clarke, 1999; Ferry et al., 1999; Palloff and Pratt, 1999; Brown and Johnson-Shull, 2000; Lowry et al., 2000). Nevertheless, although literature suggests there is a need to create learning communities and to support student socialising needs, different cohorts of students have specific needs and characteristics.This research indicates that mature, full-time professional/part-time students have neither the time nor the inclination to expend effort on non-essential and unrewarded learning tasks.

Overall conclusions about evaluation The thorough evaluation process allied with the EMAR model presented in this book enabled the MA in ITM team to maintain, improve and update a CPDE course in a fast-moving and highly competitive field. The model emerged as an invaluable tool to implement and understand action research in CPDE. It enabled both tutors and students to be actively involved in course development and delivery, and resulted in a highly motivated staff and satisfied cohort of students. Possibly the clearest evidence of the success of this evaluation process has been a comparatively low average dropout rate (26.7 per cent).The evaluation process has played a major role in this success by responding to feedback, enabling fast reactions to problems and incorporating students’ views and expectations into the course design and delivery. Therefore, in the case of the MA in ITM course, and endorsing Rapoport’s (1970) stance, action research contributes both to answering the practical concerns of students and tutors in immediate learning situations and to the educational goals of the course through joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework. The EMAR model proposed has provided just such a framework. Furthermore, action research allowed for the identification and diagnosis of a number of potential problems that led to the development of further theoretical propositions such as NICLS and the VSS discussed in the previous chapter. These problems were addressed by implementing specific research processes that in turn required specific evaluation in addition to the normal evaluation mechanisms put in place.The analysis of the findings of these projects enabled the team to formulate further theoretical hypotheses and formulations that are of general application and extend the body of knowledge in the field. It is thus a typical case of localised action research raising issues at a holistic level that are applicable in wider practice.

Chapter 7

Action research and future practice Action research in theory and in practice In this book we have tried to provide the reader with a journey through action research both in theory and in practice. The process discussed was based on the EMAR model and was developed to facilitate the change process undertaken within the MA in ITM.This allowed a transition from paper-based distance education to online learning. This process was successfully completed. Rather than just replacing paper-based materials by web pages, the current setting for each MA in ITM module offers: the corresponding and continuously revised course materials in PDF format; additional web-based materials and links; all module-related administrative and organisational information; all problem-based learning materials and case study notes; both synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools; and private group discussion and presentation areas. The pedagogical and implementation models presented have evolved through action research since the inception of the MA in ITM in 1995. This constant change has been generated by two different types of action research cycles: sixmonthly module cycles and the annual overall programme cycle. A process composed of formative and summative evaluation has provided the basis for continual problem-and-need diagnosis within individual modules. At first, the formative evaluation consisted of both individual unit and day school evaluation through questionnaires and tutor reports provided at steering committee meetings. Summative evaluation was done by the means of end-of-semester module

123


questionnaires. Whenever possible, this process allowed for response to students’ needs and tutors’ proposals while the module was still ongoing. For instance, in 1999, both tutors and students of the Project Management module identified the lack of a Risk Management unit.This unit was then written, developed and added to the syllabus before completion of the module. Despite the positive results obtained through this approach, this component of the formative evaluation process proved to be too onerous for both tutors and students, and as the programme matured and became established, unit questionnaires were dropped. Conversely, day school questionnaires and tutor reports are still in place due to their intrinsic value to the course. The programme as a whole is also evaluated by means of formative and summative methods. Steering committee meetings take place quarterly and constitute the formative evaluation component of the programme. The membership of this committee includes the programme coordinator, module coordinators, tutors, administrator and student representatives. This committee discusses issues, problems and proposals concerning the ongoing programme. Decisions of an operational nature are often taken (e.g. changing module syllabus, improvements of day school activities or new case study design). The committee also considers strategic issues, such as changing the delivery mode from paper-based into online learning, which began as early as 1997. Summative evaluation is carried out through traditional annual and end-of-programme questionnaires (also discussed in steering committee meetings), as well as through internal and external exam boards. For the past couple of years, the team has also carried out a follow-up study of the longer term impact of the MA in ITM. This has resulted in further changes in individual modules. Action research has enabled the MA in ITM team to maintain, improve and keep up to date a CPDE course in a fast-moving and highly competitive field.The various models presented in this book have emerged from this research approach as invaluable tools to implement and understand student and tutor needs.This has encouraged both tutors and students to be actively involved in course development and delivery, resulting in a very satisfied cohort of students, as can be corroborated by evaluation results. Action research has also contributed to developing a highly motivated team, evident from tutor reports and volume of proposals for continuous course improvement. Possibly the clearest evidence of the success of the programme has been a very low average dropout rate of 26.7 per cent, as compared to the average sector rate of 40 per cent (Potashnik and Capper, 1998). The formative evaluation process, characteristic of action research, has played a major role in this success by responding to feedback, enabling fast reactions to problems and incorporating students’ views and expectations into the course models, design and delivery. Therefore, in the case of the ITM course, and endorsing Rapoport’s (1970) stance, action research dealt with the practical concerns of students and tutors in immediate learning situations and contributed to the educational goals of the course through joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable framework.

Action research and future practice 125

Is it all over, when action is over? Unfortunately, and quite typically in educational institutions, the ITM team is now facing the possibility that the MA in ITM programme will no longer be available to new students. Reasons behind this decision centre almost entirely on organisational issues and are not intrinsic to the quality of the course itself. Departmental reasons are related to the need to rationalise workloads and re-focus the departmental course portfolio, and to concerns about the financial viability of distance online learning.These concerns were further compounded by anxieties at university level about the value of distance education within a research-led institution. This situation places the ITM team in an unenviable position of having to reflect on two fundamental questions that have traditionally been raised in discussions about action research: ● ●

Did we contribute to theory extension or was it a localised effort? Was it all in vain?

Did we contribute to theory extension or was it a localised effort? Assuming that the ultimate aim of research is theory extension, an important question emerges after an action research process: was theory extension achieved, or were the findings and models emerging from the research only valid for the very restricted context of the study? Accordingly, a primary concern of the action researcher lies in whether theory can be generalised from a single case study.This is a concern shared by any research that relies on case-based reasoning and analysis.Yin (1989:21) suggests that scientific facts are rarely based on a single experiment. Theory is usually based on a multiple set of experiments, which have replicated the same phenomenon under different conditions. Hence, any findings emerging from action research cannot be considered as final or complete in and of themselves. Thus, further studies will inevitably be required to establish whether the pedagogical and the implementation models proposed in this book are indeed absolutely generalisable and applicable in similar educational settings.The models presented seem to be general enough for application in other online DE settings, but further research will be required to test this assumption. As a starting point in this direction, some of the ideas, models and environments developed have already been adapted for use in different contexts and even in some European projects. Nevertheless, and in terms of responding to the question of whether the ITM team contributed to theory extension, it would always be difficult to provide a definitive answer. Usually, theory extension is proven through publication in academic refereed conferences and journals. If this is a good measure of contribution to the field of educational informatics, then this team has produced a number of such publications, as can be seen from the list of bibliographical references used in this book.


Was it all in vain? Faced with the prospect of losing a course that required such a significant commitment from and involvement of academic staff, tutors and students, naturally the ITM team felt extremely disappointed. It must be noted that many team members were actively engaged with the course for over eight years, that is, right from its inception. This feeling of disappointment extended to the students, a number of whom were already recommending this programme to their peers. Consequently, the most obvious question on the minds of the ITM team was:‘Was it all in vain?’ The fact is that the action research adopted allowed the team not only to develop a quality programme, but also to develop their skills, understandings and knowledge as practitioners.The team did more than merely deliver a programme. They developed theory on how to do so, that is, models for designing, developing and delivering online learning. Moreover, by adopting a holistic view, the team developed management, change management and action research models to support their practice. In doing so, the ITM team confirmed some of the classic benefits attributed to action research. The fundamentals of action research, within a ‘critical action research’ paradigm, involve us in the questioning of all our assumptions, the clarification of our values, the discovery of the mismatches between espoused values and our actual practice and the understanding of the wider social context in which our practice takes place. (Green, 1998) Thus, action research is not only considered to be highly appropriate to the development of online learning, but our experience suggests that it is extremely important in supporting modifications to the traditional assumptions, paradigms and preconceived ideas in HE environments. Having affected considerable changes in behaviour, acquired skills and theoretical supporting constructs, the ITM team is certainly now richer than if it had merely engaged in a straightforward process of course delivery. Finally, the online learning solution developed using both EMAR and the ESD framework proposed in this book, enabled a student-centred learning environment where both tutors and students actively engaged in productive learning relationships.This was particularly appreciated by students as confirmed by Omale (2001) in her follow-up evaluation, in which a student who had already participated in two previous DE programmes, one an MBA, stated: The ITM course was different in many ways from other distance learning courses partly because of the continuity of interaction between participants, but also because of the role play most of the assignment encouraged – researcher and consultant.This has helped me to develop two key strands of my skill set to keep up with the raising of standards in the outside world. For

Action research and future practice 127

me it has been a useful MBA update and extension, but it has also helped me develop the methodologies, and an ability to develop them, which I hope to put to good use in the next phase of my career. (Respondent DP) Consequently, we believe that none of these efforts were a waste of time at all.The MA in ITM team emerged from this action research process both knowledgeable and skilled, as well as justifiably proud of a job well done.

Bibliography Allen, B. (1992) ‘Constructive criticisms’. In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, ed. T. Duffy and D. Jonassen, pp. 183–205. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Al Rawas, A. (2001) ‘The challenge of new learning technologies for higher education in Oman. Towards a national e-learning system: Potential and challenges’. In Proceedings of The University of the 21st Century UNESCO International Conference, 17–19 March 2001, Muscat, Oman, pp. 512–20. Altrichter, H. and Gstettner, P. (1993) ‘Action research: A closed chapter in the history of German social science?’, Education Through Research, 1(3), 329–60. Anderson,T. (1997) ‘Integrating lectures and electronic course materials’, Innovations in Education and Training International, 34(1), 11–19. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996) Organizational Learning II:Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, Mass:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Atkins, M. (1994) ‘Evaluating interactive technologies for learning’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10, 251–60. Ausserhofer, A. (1999) ‘Web based teaching and learning, a panacea?’. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. Communications Magazine, 37(3), 92–6. Avison, D. and Fitzgerald, G. (1993) Information Systems Development: Methodologies,Techniques and Tools, 5th edn. Oxford:Alfred Waller. Banathy, B. (1991) ‘Comprehensive systems design in education:Who should be the designers?’. Educational Technology, September 1991, 49–51. Barker, P. (1989) ‘Knowledge engineering for CAL’. In Multi-media Computer Assisted Learning, ed. P. Barker, pp. 163–75. New York: Kogan Page. Barker, P. (1993) Exploring Hypermedia. New York: Kogan Page. Barker, P. and King,T. (1993) ‘Evaluating interactive multimedia courseware – a methodology’. Computers in Education, 21(4), 307–19.

128

Bibliography

129

Baskerville, R. (1999) ‘Investigating information systems with action research’. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(19). Also available online at: http://cis.gsu.edu/~rbaskerv/CAIS_2_19/CAIS_2_19.html [last visited on 10/01/2003]. Bates, A. (1991) ‘Third generation distance education: the challenge of new technology’. Research in Distance Education, 3(2), 10–15. Baumgartner, P. and Payr. S. (1996) ‘Learning as action: a social science approach to the evaluation of interactive media’. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 96 – World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Charlottesville, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. 31–7. Bednar A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. and Perry, J. (1992) ‘Theory into practice: how do we link?’ In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, ed. T. Duffy and D. Jonassen (1992), pp. 17–34. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Benigno,V. and Trentin, G. (2000) ‘The evaluation of online courses’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 259–70. Benjamin, A. (1994) ‘Affordable, restructured education: A solution through information technology’. RSA Journal, May 1994, 45–9. Bennett, D. (2000) ‘Development and evaluation of a prototype web application for online distance education’. MSc dissertation, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Berge, Z. L. (1992) ‘Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field’. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30. Berge, Z. and Collins, M. (1995a) Computer-Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press. Berge, Z. and Collins, M. (1995b) ‘Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom: Overview and perspectives’. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine 2(2), available online at: http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1995/feb/berge.html [last visited on 10/01/2003]. Berryman, S. (1991) ‘Designing effective learning: Cognitive apprenticeship models’. Live text Educational Resources Information Center document 337 689, 1–5. New York: Institute for Learning Technology, Columbia University. Available online at: http://www.ilt.columbia. edu/publications/papers/berry1.html [last visited on 10/01/2003]. Beynon-Davies, P. (2002) Information Systems: An Introduction to Informatics in Organisations. Basingstoke, Hants: Palgrave Publishers Limited. Bigge, M. L. and Shermis, S. (1999) Learning Theories for Teachers, 6th edn. New York: Longman. Blum, F. (1955) ‘Action research – A scientific approach?’. Philosophy of Science, 22(1), 1–7. Booch, G., Jacobson, I. and Rumbaugh, J. (1998) The Unified Modelling Language Users Guide. Reading, Mass:Addison-Wesley. Bowskill, N. (1998) ‘Networked learning:A review paper’. In NetLinkS Final Report to JISC, ed. P. Levy,T.Wilson, N. Bowskill and C. Goodier. Sheffield: Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Also available online at: http://netways.shef.ac.uk/about/finrep98/ index.htm [last visited on 10/01/2003]. Boyle,T. (1997) Design for Multimedia Learning. London: Prentice Hall Europe. Bramley, G. (1991) Adult Literacy: Basic Skills and Libraries. London: Library Association Publishing Limited. Breivik, P. S. Student Learning in the Information Age. Phoenix: American Council on Education/Oryx Press Series on Higher Education. Bridges, D. (2001) ‘Professionalism, authenticity and action research’. Educational Action Research: An International Journal, 9(3), 451–63. Brown, J., Collins, A. and Duguid P. (1989) ‘Situated cognition and the culture of learning’. Education Researcher, 18, 10–12. Brown, G. and Johnson-Shull, L. (2000) ‘Teaching online: Now we’re talking’. The Technology Source, May/June 2000.

130 Developing innovation in online learning Bruce, B. and Rubin, A. (1993) Electronic Quills: A Situated Evaluation of Computers for Writing in Classrooms. New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale. Bruce, M. and Shade, R. (1994) ‘Teaching via compressed video: Promising practices and potential pitfalls’. Distance Education Online Symposium News, 4(8). Bryman,A. (1984) ‘The debate about quantitative and qualitative research:A question of method or epistemology?’. British Journal of Sociology, 35, 75–92. Burge, E., Snow, J. and Howard, J. (1988) Developing Partnerships: An Investigation of Library-based Relationships with Students and Educators Participating in Distance Education in Northern Ontario. Toronto: Distance Learning Office,The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Caldwell, B. and Taha, L. H. (1993).‘Starving at the banquet: Social isolation in electronic communication media’. Interpersonal Computing and Technology:An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 1(1).Available online at: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1993/n1/caldwell.txt [Last visited 17/08/2002]. Carr,A., Jonassen, D., Litzinger, M. and Marra, R. (1998) ‘Good ideas to foment educational revolution: The role of systemic change in advancing situated learning, constructivism, and feminist pedagogy’. Educational Technology, 38 (1), 5–15. Carr, S. (2000) ‘Learning to communicate online is a challenge for new distance-ed students’. In The Chronicle of Higher Education. Also available online at: http://chronicle.com/free/ 2000/01/2000011301u.htm. [Last visited 17/03/2003]. Chen, C. (1999) Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments. Surrey: Springer-Verlag London. Chivers, G. and McPherson, M. A. (1994) ‘Breaking old boundaries: Building new forms’. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Women,Work and Computerization (IFIP 1994), 2–5 July 1994, Manchester, UK, pp. 81–90. Christensen, M., Giamo, M., Jones,T. and Simpson, L. (1993) ‘Using hypermedia to teach about hypermedia’. Educational Technology Review, autumn/winter 1993, 17–26. Clark, R. (1985) ‘Confounding in educational research’. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(4), 445–59. Clarke, S. (1999). ‘Overcoming barriers to creating on-line communities’. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ACILITE 1999). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Available online at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane99/papers/clarke.pdf . [last visited on 03/07/2003]. Coad, P. and Yourdon, E. (1991) Object-Oriented Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Yourdon Press. Cockerton,T. and Shimell, R. (1997) ‘Evaluation of a hypermedia document as a learning tool’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(2), 133–44. Codd, E. (1970) ‘A relational model for large shared databanks’. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13(6), 377–87. Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2001) Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation. London: Sage Publications. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University (1991) ‘Technology and the design of generative learning environments’. In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, ed. T. Duffy and D. Jonassen, pp. 77–89. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1995) Research Methods in Education, 4th edn. London: Routledge. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education, 5th edn. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Collins, A., Brown, S. and Newman, S. (1989) ‘Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics’. In Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, ed. R. Glaser and L. Resnick, pp. 435–94. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bibliography

131

Cornford, J. and Pollock, N. (2003) Putting the University Online. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Crinnion, J. (1991) Evolutionary Systems Development: A Practical Guide to the Use of Prototyping Within a Structured Systems Methodology. London: Pitman Publishing. Criswell, E. (1989) The Design of Computer-Based Instruction. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Croft, R. (1993) ‘Adapting software design methodologies for instructional design’. Educational Technology,August 1993, 24–32. Cross, K. (1981) Adults as Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cummings, L. (1995) ‘Educational technology – A faculty resistance review. Part I: Incentives and understanding’. Educational Technology Review, autumn 1995, 13–17. Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. and Knuth, R. (1993) ‘The textbook of the future’. In Hypertext: a Psychological Perspective, ed. C. McKnight, A. Dillon and J. Richardson, pp. 19–49. London: Ellis Horwood Ltd. Cunningham, J. B. (1995) ‘Strategic considerations in using action research for improving personnel practices’. Public Personnel Management, 24(2), 515–29. Cutts, G. (1991) Structured Systems Analysis and Design Methodology, 2nd edn. Henley-on-Thames, Oxon:Alfred Waller Ltd. Darby, J. (1992) ‘The future of computers in teaching and learning’. Computers in Education, 19(1/2), 193–7. Darlington, Y. and Scott, D. (2002) Qualitative Research in Practice: Stories from the Field. Crows Nest, Sydney:Allen and Unwin. DeMarco,T. (1978) Structured Analysis and System Specification. New York: Prentice Hall Inc. de Vaus, D. (1996) Surveys in Social Research, 4th edn. London: UCL Press Ltd. Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. Indianapolis: Kappa Delta Pi, International Honour Society in Education. Draper, S. (1996) Observing, Measuring, or Evaluating Courseware [WWW document]. Glasgow: Glasgow University. Available online at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/Eval.HE.html [last visited on 03/01/2004]. Draper, S., Brown, M., Henderson, F. and McAteer, E. (1996) ‘Integrative evaluation:An emerging role for classroom studies of CAL’. Computers and Education, 26(1–3), 17–32. Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. (1992) ‘Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology’. In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, ed. T. Duffy and D. Jonassen, pp. 1–16. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J. and Jonassen, D. H. (1993) Designing Environments for Constructivist Learning. New York: Springer-Verlag. Duit, R. (1996) ‘The constructivist view in science education – what it has to offer and what should not be expected from it’. Investigations in Science Education, 1(1). Available online at http://www.if.ufrgs.br/public/ensino/N1/3artigo.htm [last visited 03/04/2003]. Duke, C. (2002) Managing the Learning University. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Ebbutt, D. (1985) ‘Educational action research: Some general concerns and specific quibbles’. In Issues in Educational Research: Qualitative Methods, ed. R. G. Burgess, pp. 152–74. Lewes: Falmer Press. Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996) ‘Action research for management research’. British Journal of Management, 7(1), 75–86. Eilon, S. (1974) ‘Seven faces of research’. Omega, 2(1), 1–9. Eisenstadt, M. and Vincent, T. (eds) (1998) The Knowledge Web: Learning and Collaborating on the Net. London: Kogan Page. English, S. and Yazdani, M. (1999) ‘Computer supported cooperative learning in a virtual university’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(1), 2–13.

132 Developing innovation in online learning European Commission Study Group on Education and Training (1997) Accomplishing Europe through Education and Training. Brussels: European Commission. Ferry, B., Hoban, G. and Lockyer, L. (1999).‘The use of computer-mediated communication to support the formation of a knowledge-building community in initial teacher education’. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ACILITE 1999). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Available online at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane99/ papers/ferryhoban.pdf. [last visited on 03/07/2003]. Finch, J. (1986) Research and Policy: The Uses of Qualitative Methods in Social and Educational Research. Lewes: Falmer Press. Fischer, G. and Scharff, E. (1998) ‘Learning technologies in support of self-directed learning’. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 98(4).Available at: http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/98/4/ [last visited 03/01/2004] Fosnot, C. (1996) ‘Constructivism:A psychological theory of learning’. In Constructivism:Theory, Perspectives and Practice, ed. C. Fosnot, pp. 8–33. New York:Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Fox, R. and Herrman, A. (2000) ‘Changing media, changing times: Coping with adopting new educational technologies’. In Changing University Teaching: Reflections on Creating Educational Technologies, ed.T. Evans and D. Nation, pp. 73–84. London: Kogan Page. Fraser, S. (1997) ‘Open learning: the challenges ahead’, UniServe Science News, 6.Available online at: http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol6/fraser.html [last visited 03/01/04] French, D., Hale, C., Johnson, C. and Farr, G. (1999) ‘Preparing for internet-based learning’. In Internet Based-Learning: An Introduction and Framework for Higher Education and Business, ed. D. French, C. Hale, C. Johnson and G. Farr (1999). London: Kogan Page. Galusha, J. (1997) ‘Barriers to learning in distance education’. Infrastruction Network. Available online at: http://www.infrastruction.com/barriers.htm. [Last visited 10/07/2003]. Gerrard, C. (2002) ‘Promoting best practice for e-tutoring through staff development’. In Proceedings of Networked Learning 2002:Third International Conference, Lancaster University and University of Sheffield, 26–28 March 2002. Also available online at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ nlc2002/proceedings/papers/15.htm. [Last visited 10/03/2003]. Giddens,A. (1984) The Construction of Society. London: Polity Press. Gilchrist, D. (2000) All work and no play? The design and development of a social student support system. MSc dissertation in Information Systems, University of Sheffield. Gill, J. (1986) ‘Research as action:An experiment in utilizing the social sciences’. In The Use and Abuse of Social Science, ed. F. Heller, pp. 99–122. London: Sage. Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (1997) Research Methods for Managers. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Goldberg, M. and Salari, S. (1997) ‘An update on WebCT (World-Wide-Web course tools):A tool for the creation of sophisticated web-based learning environments’. In Proceedings of NAUWeb ’97 – Current Practices in Web-Based Course Development, 12–15 June 1997, Flagstaff, Arizona. Also available online at: http://www.trentu.ca/csd/webct/instruct/updatewebct.shtml [last visited 03/03/2003]. Goodyear, P. (1999) ‘Pedagogical frameworks and action research in open and distance learning’. Lancaster University: CSALT, working paper 99–4–1. Available online at: http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/edres/csaltdocs.nsf [last visited on 10/01/2003]. Goodyear, P. (2000) ‘Effective networked learning in higher education: notes and guidelines’. In Networked Learning in Higher Education Project Report. Available online at: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/advice.htm [last visited on 10/01/2003]. Grabinger, S. and Dunlap, J. (1995) ‘Rich environments for active learning’. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 3(2), 5–34. Green, K. (1998) ‘Action research in a dynamic context: problems and possibilities’. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and

Bibliography

133

Curriculum Development (IDATEE98). Loughborough: Loughborough University. Available online at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/idater/database/green98.html. Greenfield, S., Peters, J., Lane, N., Rees,T. and Samuels, G. (2002) Set Fair:A Report on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. London: Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Hall, N. A. and Nunes, J. M. (2002) ‘Complementing traditional lecture-based teaching with elearning: a case study’. In Proceedings of International Association for the Development of the Information Society Conference (IADIS 2002), 13–15 November 2002, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 128–34. Hall,T. (2002a) ‘Enabling technologies critical success factors for elearning implementation’. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2002), 9–12 September 2002, Kazan,Tatarstan, Russia, p. 555. Hall,T. (2002b) ‘Curriculum development critical success factors for elearning implementation’. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2002), 3–6 December 2002,Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 1544–5. Hammond, N. (1992) ‘Tailoring hypertext for the learner’. In Cognitive Tools for Learning, ed. P. Kommers, D. Jonassen, and J. Mayes, pp. 149–60. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hammond, N. (1993) ‘Learning with hypertext: Problems, principles and prospects’. In Hypertext:A Psychological Perspective, ed. C. McKnight,A. Dillon and J. Richardson, pp. 51–70. London: Ellis Horwood Ltd. Handal, G. (1991) ‘Collective time – collective practice?’ Curriculum Journal, 2, 317–34. Hannafin, M. and Peck, K. (1988) The Design, Development and Evaluation of Instructional Software. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Hara, N. (2000) ‘Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course’. Information, Communication and Society, 3(4): 557–79. Hara, N. and Kling, R. (1999) ‘Students’ frustrations with a web-based distance education course’. First Monday, 4(12) (December 1999). Also available online at: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html [Last visited 14/03/03] Hara, N. and Kling, R. (2000) ‘Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course:An ethnographic study of participants’ experiences’. Center for Social Informatics working paper, Indiana University Bloomington. Available online at: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/ CSI/WP/wp00-01B.html [last visited on 10/07/2003]. Hara, N. and Kling, R. (2001) ‘Student distress in web-based distance education’. Educause Quarterly, 3, 68–9. Also available online at: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ eqm01312.pdf [last visited on 10/07/2003]. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., and Turoff, M. (1995) Network Learning; A Paradigm for the Twenty First Century. Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. HEFCE (2000) Business Model for the e-University. Available online at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/ Pubs/hefce/2000/0044/00_44rep.doc [last visited on 10/01/2003] Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D. and Smaldino, S. E. (1996) Instruction, Media and Technologies for Learning, 5th edn. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hickman, F., Killi, J., Land, L., Mulhal,T., Porter, D. and Taylor, R. (1989) Analysis for KnowledgeBased Systems: A Practical Guide to the KADS Methodology. Chichester, West Sussex: Ellis Horwood Ltd. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. and Lyytinen, K. (1995) Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Honebein, C., Duffy,T. and Fishman, J. (1993) ‘Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning’. In Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, ed. T. Duffy, J. Lowyck and D. Jonassen, pp. 87–109. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Hopkins, D. (1985) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Hotte, R. and Pierre, S. (2002) ‘Leadership and conflict management support in a cooperative

134 Developing innovation in online learning telelearning environment’. International Journal on e-Learning, 1(2) (April–June 2002), 46–59. Also available online at: http://www-icdl.open.ac.uk/lit2k/LitResult. ihtml?&id=20944. [Last visited on 10/03/2003]. Howell, G. (1992) Building Hypermedia Applications: A Software Development Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. Jegede, O. (1991) ‘Constructivism and research in distance education’. Open Forum, 1(1), 5–10. Johnson, P. (1995) ‘Towards an epistemology for radical accounting: Beyond objectivism and relativism’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6, 485–509. Jonassen, D. (1990) ‘Thinking technology’. Educational Technology, September 1990, 32–4. Jonassen, D. (1991) ‘Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?’. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 4–14. Jonassen, D. (1992) ‘Evaluating constructivist learning’. In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, T. Duffy and D. Jonassen, pp. 137–49. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jonassen, D. (1995) ‘Operationalizing mental models: Strategies for assessing mental models to support meaningful learning and design – supportive learning environments’. In Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning ‘95 Conference. Bloomington, Indiana University. Also available online at: http://www.cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/jonassen.html [last visited on 14/12/98]. Jonassen, D. (1996) ‘Scaffolding diagnostic reasoning in case-based learning environments’. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 8(1), 48–68. Jonassen, D., Mayes, T. and McAleese, R. (1992). ‘A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education’. In Designing Environments for Constructivist Learning NATO ASI series, ed.T. Duffy, J. Lowyck and D. Jonassen, pp. 231–47. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Jones,A. and Mercer, N. (1993) ‘Theories of learning and information technology’. In Language, Classroom and Computers, ed. P. Scrimshaw, pp. 11–26. London: Routledge. Jordan, B. (1987) Modes of Teaching and Learning: Questions Raised by the Training of Traditional Birth Attendants. Report no. IRL87-0004. Palo Alto, California: Institute for Research on Learning. Kakabadse, A. and Korac-Kakabadse, N. (2000) ‘Leading the pack: Future role of IS/IT professionals’, Journal of Management Development, 19(2), 97–155. Kay,A. (1991) ‘Computers, networks and education’. Scientific American, 256(3), 100–107. Kaye,A. (1989) ‘Computers make slow progress in class’. Science, 244, 906–9. Keegan, D. (ed.) (1993) Theoretical Principles of Distance Education. London: Routledge. Kember, D. (1991) ‘Instructional design for meaningful learning’. Instructional Science, 20, 289–310. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988) (eds.) The Action Research Planner, 2nd edn. Geelong, Victoria,Australia: Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1992) (eds.) The Action Research Planner, 3rd edn. Geelong, Victoria,Australia: Deakin University Press. Kerr, E. B. (1986) ‘Electronic leadership:A guide to moderating on-line conferences’. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.Transactions on Professional Communication, 29(1), 12–18. Khakhar, D. (1998) ‘Organisational and policy issues’. In Issues in Design of Frameworks for Open and Distance Learning, ed. D. Khakhar and G. Quirchmayr, pp. 89–112. Socrates European Project Report: 56605-CP-1-98-SE-ODL-ODL. Khakhar, D. and Quirchmayr, G. (1998) Issues in Design of Frameworks for Open and Distance Learning. Socrates European Project Report: 56605-CP-1-98-SE-ODL-ODL. Kling, R. and Allen, J. P. (1996) ‘Can computer science solve organisational problems? The case for organisational informatics’. In Computerisation and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, ed. R. Kling. San Diego:Academic Press. Kling, R. and Hara, N. (2002),‘Informatics and Distributed Learning’. CSI working paper WP02-05. Indiana University, Bloomington. Also available online at: http://www.slis. indiana.edu/CSI/WP/WP02-05B.html [last visited on 01/12/2002].

Bibliography

135

Knowles, M. (1975) Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. New York: Association Press. Knussen, C., Tanner, G. and Kibby, M. (1991) ‘An approach to the evaluation of hypermedia’. Computers and Education, 17(1), 13–24. Knuth, R. and Cunningham, D. (1993) ‘Tools for constructivism’. In Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, ed. T. Duffy, J. Lowyck and D. Jonassen, pp. 163–88. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D., Lublin, S., Spoth, J. and Baker, R. (1971) ‘Strategic management development: Experiential learning and managerial competencies’. Journal of Management Development, 3(5), 13–24. Kommers, P. (1996) ‘Multimedia environments’. In Hypermedia Learning Environments: Instructional Design and Integration, ed. P. Kommers, S. Grabinger and J. Dunlap, pp. 13–32. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kuhlthau, C. (1993) Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services. New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation. Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lake, D. (1999) ‘Reducing isolation for distance students: An online initiative’. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum on Teaching in the Disciplines/Learning in Context, 3–4 February 1999, ed. K. Martin, N. Stanley and N. Davison. University of Western Australia, Perth, pp. 210–14. Also available online at: http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/lake.html [Last visited on 10/03/2003]. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lange,T., Ottens, M. and Taylor, A. (2000) ‘SMEs and barriers to skills development: A Scottish perspective’. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(1), 5–11. Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: a Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. New York: Routledge. Lebow, D. (1993) ‘Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset’. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4–16. Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, tr. D. Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell. Levin, M. and Greenwood, D. (2001) ‘Pragmatic action research and the struggle to transform universities into learning communities’. In Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury. London: Sage Publications. Levy, P., Ford, N., Foster, J., Madden, A., Miller, D., Baptista Nunes, J. , McPherson, M. A. and Webber, S. (2003) ‘Educational informatics: An emerging research agenda’. Journal of Information Systems, 29(4), 298–310. Lewin, K. (1946) ‘Action research and minority problems’. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper. Lewis, R. (1985) ‘How to develop and manage an open learning scheme’. Open Learning Guide 5 (LC 5800 L484 1985). London: Council for Education Technology. Linn, M. (1996) ‘Cognition and distance learning’. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(11), 826–42. Lowry, C. (1989) ‘Supporting and facilitating self-directed learning’. Educational Resources Information Center Digest no. 93. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education. Lowry, M., Thornam C. and White, C. (2000) ‘Preparing higher education learners for success on the web’. In Issues in Web-Based Pedagogy: A Critical Primer, ed. R. A. Cole, pp. 297–316. Connecticut, USA: Greenwood Press.

136 Developing innovation in online learning Maddux, C. D., Johnson, L. and Harlow, S. (1994) ‘Educational computing:Avoiding the Everest syndrome in the 21st century’. In Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1994, eds J.Willis, B. Robin, and D.A.Willis, pp. 371–4. Charlottesville,VA:Association for the Advancement of Computing Education. Marjanovic, O. (1999) ‘Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 129–38. Also available online at: http://wwwicdl.open.ac.uk/lit2k/LitResult.ihtml?&id=17142. [Last visited on 10/03/2003]. Martin, J. (1990) Hyperdocuments and How to Create Them. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Martin, J. (1991) Rapid Application Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Mason, R. (1991) ‘Moderating educational computer conferencing’. Distance Education Online Symposium News, 1(19). Also available online at http://www.emoderators.com/papers/ mason.html [Last visited on 10/03/2003]. Mason, R. and Kaye, A. (1989). Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Mayer, R. (1989) ‘Models for understanding’. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64. Mazoué, J. (1999) ‘The essentials of effective online instruction’. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 16(3), 104–10. McDowell, L. and Pickard, A. (2000).‘Let’s be careful out there: Learning in the world of electronic information’. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Networked Learning Conference, Lancaster University, 17–19 April 2000, coorganised with University of Sheffield. Available online at: http://collaborate.shef.ac.uk/monday.htm [Last visited on 10/07/2003] McKendree, J. (1994) ‘Design: More than meets the eye?’. Association for Learning Technology Newsletter, 5, 2. McKernan, J. (1991) Curriculum Action Research. London: Kogan Page. McMann, G. (1994) ‘The changing role of moderation in computer mediated conferencing’. In Proceedings of the Distance Learning Research Conference, 27–29 April 1994, San Antonio,Texas, pp. 159–66. McNiff, J. (1988) Action Research: Principles and Practice. Basingstoke: MacMillan. McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project. London: Routledge (in association with Hyde Publication, Bournemouth). McPherson, M.A. (1995) Information Technology Management and its Applications – Bridging the Gap between Information Technology Users and Information Technology Specialists, COMETT Strand Cb Final Report. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. McPherson, M.A. (2002) ‘Organisational critical success factors for managing elearning implementation’. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2002), 3–6 December 2002,Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 1540–1. McPherson, M.A. and Nunes, J. M. (2001) ‘The role of evaluation processes in professional continuing education programmes: A case study’. In Proceedings of UNESCO Conference on The University of the 21st Century,An International Conference, 17–19 March 2001,Al Bustan Palace Hotel, Muscat, Oman, pp. 369–87. McPherson, M. A. and Nunes, J. M. (2002a) ‘An action research model for persistent improvement of continuing professional distance education (CPDE) programmes’. In Proceedings of the Second Research Workshop of the European Distance Education Network (EDEN) on Research and Policy in Open and Distance Learning, 21–23 March 2002, University of Hildesheim, Germany, pp. 7–11. McPherson, M. A. and Nunes, J. M (2002b) ‘Supporting educational management through action research’. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(6), 300–308. McPherson, M. A. and Nunes, J. M (2003a) ‘Online learning support in constructivist environments’. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2003), 9–11 July 2003,Athens, Greece.

Bibliography

137

McPherson, M. A. and Nunes, J. M (2003b) ‘A practitioner’s evaluation of Salmon’s five-step model for the use of CMC in HE’. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference of the LTSN Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, 26–28 August, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. Melton, R. (1990) ‘The changing face of educational technology’. Educational Technology, September 1990, 26–31. Molenda, M. (1991) ‘A philosophical critique of the claims of constructivism’. Educational Technology, September 1991, 44–8. Montegomery,A. (1998) ‘Informatics knowledge mapping and curriculum design:A clear role for IFIP and UNESCO’. In Proceedings of the 15th International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) World Computer Congress:The Global Information Society on the Way to the Next Millennium, 31 August–4 September 1998, Austrian Computer Society, Vienna, Austria. Also available online at: http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~aym/MONTIFIP.pdf [last visited on 20/01/2003]. Moonen, J. (1986) ‘Toward an industrial approach to educational software development’. In Designing Computer-Based Learning Materials, ed. A. Bork and H. Weinstock, pp. 119–51. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Moore, G. (1991) ‘Course design and communication technology in distance education’. In Proceedings of the Second American Symposium on Research in Distance Education, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Murphy, K. L., Drabier, R. and Epps, M. L. (1998) ‘A constructivist look at interaction and collaboration via computer conferencing’. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(2/3), 237–61. Musselbrook, K., McAteer, E., Crook, C., McCloud, H. and Tholmy, A. (2000) ‘Learning networks and communication skills’. Association for Learning Technology Journal 8(1), 71–9. Nabi, G. R. and Bagley, D. (1999) ‘Graduates’ perceptions of transferable personal skills and future career preparation in the UK’. Education + Training, 41(4), 184–93. Nervig, N. (1990) ‘Instructional systems development: A reconstructed ISD model’. Educational Technology, November 1990, 40–6. Neuman,W. L. (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Needham Heights, Mass:Allyn and Bacon. Newman,W. and Lamming, M. (1995) Interactive Systems Design. Cambridge:Addison-Wesley. Nodenot, T. (1992) ‘Educational software engineering: A methodology based on cooperative developments’. In Computer Assisted Learning: Proceedings of 4th International Conference, ICCAL ’92, ed. I.Tomek (1992), pp. 529–41. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Norris, N. (1990) Understanding Educational Evaluation. London: Kogan Page. Nunes, J. M. (1999) ‘The experiential dual layer model (EDLM): A conceptual model integrating a constructivist theoretical approach to academic learning with the process of hypermedia design’. PhD thesis, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Nunes, J. M. and Fowell, S. P. (1996a).‘Hypermedia as an experiential learning tool: A theoretical model’. Information Research News, 6(4), 15–27. Also available online at: http://informationr.net/ir/2-1/paper12.html [last visited on 03/03/2003]. Nunes, J. M. and Fowell, S. P. (1996b) ‘Developing educational hypermedia applications: A methodological approach’. Information Research News, 7(1), 12–20. Also available online at: http://informationr.net/ir/2-2/paper15.html [last visited on 03/03/2003]. Nunes, J. M. and McPherson, M. A. (2002a) ‘Pedagogical and implementation models for elearning continuing professional distance education (CPDE) emerging from action research’. International Journal of Management Education, 2(3), 16–25. Nunes, J. M. and McPherson, M. A. (2002b) ‘Managing change in continuing professional distance education (CPDE) through action research’. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (LTSN-ICS 2002), 27–29 August 2002, Loughborough University, pp. 20–25.

138 Developing innovation in online learning Nunes, J. M. and McPherson, M. A. (2002c) ‘The management of information’. Institute for the Management of Information Systems Journal, 12(4), 15–17. Nunes, J. M. and McPherson, M.A. (2003a) ‘Using an educational systems design (ESD) framework to support action research in continuing professional distance education’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 429–37. Nunes, J. M. and McPherson, M.A. (2003b) ‘Constructivism vs. objectivism:Where is difference for designers of e-learning environments?’. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2003), 9–11 July 2003, Athens, Greece, pp. 496–500. Nunes, J. M. and McPherson, M. A. (2003c) ‘Learning support in constructivist elearning environments’. Proceedings of the Workshop on The Changing Face of HE in the 21st Century: Critical Success Factors for Implementing eLearning, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, pp. 8–14. Nunes, J. M., McPherson, M. and Rico, M. (2000a) ‘Instructional design of a networked learning skills module for web-based collaborative distance learning’. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Web-Based Learning Environments (WBLE 2000), 5–6 June 2000, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, pp. 95–103. Nunes, J. M., McPherson, M. and Rico, M. (2000b) ‘Design and development of a networked learning skills module for web-based collaborative distance learning’. In Proceedings of 1st ODL International Workshop 2000, 19–21 July 2000, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Centro de Formación de Postgrado,Valencia, Spain, pp. 117–31. Nunes, J. M., McPherson, M. and Rico, M. (2001) ‘Constructivist instructional design and development of a networked learning skills (NICLS) module for continuing professional education distance learning’. In Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2001-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 25–30 June,Tampere, Finland, pp. 86–91. Nunes, J. M., McPherson, M., Firth, C. and Gilchrist, D. (2002) ‘All work and no play? The design and development of a virtual social space (VSS) to support distance learning students’. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2002), 3–6 December, ed. Kinshuk, R. Lewis, K. Akahori, R. Kemp,T. Okamoto, L. Henderson and C. H. Lee, Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 1117–21. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), US Congress (1988) Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379.Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. Oliver, M. and Conole, G. (1998) ‘Evaluating communication and information technologies: A toolkit for practitioners’. Active Learning, 8, 3–8. Omale, U. (2001) ‘The effectiveness of a continuing professional distance education programme’. MSc dissertation, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Pahl, C., Lipinski, P. and Reiss, K. (2002) ‘E-stat: web-based learning and teaching of statistics in secondary schools’. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Computational Statistics (COMPSTAT 2002), 24–28 August 2002, Berlin, Germany. Available online at http://www.quantlet.de/scripts/compstat2002_wh/paper/full/E_05_pahl.pdf [last visited on 20/01/2003]. Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. (1999) Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Paulsen, M. F. (1995) ‘Moderating educational computer conferences’. In Computer Mediated Communication and the On-line Classroom in Distance Education, ed. Z. L. Berge and M. P. Collins (1995), pp. 81–90. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press. Petruk, M. (1989) ‘Adjusting to paradigm shift in teaching and learning or:What do I do now?’. In Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: CEPES-UNESCO International Symposium, ed.V. Marik and Z. Zdrahal, pp. 34–8. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Pfeiffer, J. and Ballew,A. (1988a) Using Structured Experiences in Human Resource Development. San Diego: University Associates.

Bibliography

139

Pfeiffer, J. and Ballew, A. (1988b) Design Skills in Human Resource Development. San Diego: University Associates. Pincas, A. (2000) ‘New literacies and future educational culture’. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 8(2), 69–79. Pointeer, C. (1985) ‘Origination and design’. In Educational Software:A Creator’s Handbook, ed. K. Alexander and D. Blanchard. Loughborough:Tecmedia Ltd. Pomberger, G. and Blaschek, G. (1996) Object-Orientation and Prototyping in Software Engineering. Hempstead, Herts: Prentice Hall Europe. Potashnik, M. and Capper, J. (1998) ‘Distance education: growth and diversity’, Finances and Development, 35(1). Available online at: http://www.worldbank.org/fandd/english/ 0398/articles/0110398.htm [last accessed on 03/01/04]. QAA – The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (1999) Guidelines on the Quality Assurance of Distance Learning. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Rapoport, R. N. (1970) ‘Three dilemmas in action research’. Human Relations, 23(4), 499–513. Redmond-Pyle, D. and Moore, A. (1995) Interface Design and Evaluation: A Practical Process. London: Prentice-Hall. Reeves, T. (2002) ‘Storm clouds on the digital education horizon’. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE 2002):Winds of Change in the Sea of Learning,Auckland, New Zealand: UNITEC Institute of Technology, pp. 17–26. Reigeluth, C. (1992) ‘Reflections on the implications of constructivism for educational technology’. In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, ed. T. Duffy and D. Jonassen, pp. 149–57. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rico, M. (2000) ‘Design and development of a web-based module on networked information and communication literacy skills’. Dissertation, University of Sheffield. Riding, P., Fowell, S. and Levy, P. (1995) ‘An action research approach to curriculum development’. Information Research, 1(1). Available online at: http://informationr.net/ir/1-1/ paper2.html, [last visited on 20/01/2003]. Roberts, L. (1996) ‘A transformation of learning: Use of the national information infrastructure for education and lifelong learning’. In Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 1995–96. Englewood, Colarado: Libraries Unlimited. Robinson, B. (2001) ‘Innovation in open and distance learning: Some lessons from experience and research’ In Innovation in Open and Distance Learning: Successful Development of Online and Webbased Learning, eds, F. Lockwood and A. Gooley, pp.15-27. London, UK: Kogan Page. Robinson, K. and Berrisford, G. (1994) Object-Oriented SSADM. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Robinson,V. (1992) ‘Why doesn’t educational research solve educational problems?’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 24(2), 8–28. Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ross, J. A. (1996) ‘The influence of computer communication skills on participation in a computer conferencing course’. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(1), 37–52. Rowland, G. (1994) ‘Designing and evaluating: Creating futures and appreciating error’. Educational Technology, January 1994, 10–22. Rutter, D. R., Stephenson, E. A. and Dewey, M. E. (1981) ‘Visual communication and the content and style of communication’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 41–52. Ryder, M. and Wilson, B. (1996) ‘Affordances and constraints of the Internet for learning and instruction’. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications Technology, Indianapolis. Also available online at: http:/www. cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect-96.html [last visited on 15/01/2003]. Salmon, G. (2000) E-Moderating:The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Kogan Page.

140 Developing innovation in online learning Santoro, G. P. (1995) ‘What is computer mediated communication?’. In Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom, ed. Z. Berge and M. Collins, pp. 11–27. New Jersey: Hampton Press. Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000) Research Methods for Business Students, 2nd edn. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Sawyer, S. and Eschenfelder, K. R. (2002) ‘Social informatics: Perspectives, examples and trends’. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 427–65. Schank, R., Kass, A. and Riesbeck, C. (1994) Inside Case-Based Explanation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Schwandt,T. (1997) Qualitative Inquiry:A Dictionary of Terms. London: Sage. Secretary of State for Education and Skills (2003) White Paper on the Future of Higher Education. Norwich: UK Government Cabinet Office. Sherry, L. (1996).‘Issues in distance learning’. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(4), 337–65. Also available online at: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~lsherry/pubs/issues.html [last visited on 15/01/2003]. Shlaer, S. and Mellor, S. (1988) Object-Oriented Systems Analysis – Modelling the World in Data. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Yourdon Press. Shulman, L. and Ringstaff, C. (1986) ‘Current research in the psychology of learning and teaching’. In Designing Computer-Based Learning Materials, ed. H.Weinstock and A. Bork, pp. 1–31. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Simons, R. (1993) ‘Constructive learning:The role of the learner’. In Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, ed. T. Duffy, J. Lowyck and D. Jonassen, pp. 291–313. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. SKIP (1998) Skills for New Information Professionals.A Project in the Training and Awareness Category of the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) eLib programme. Plymouth, UK: University of Plymouth. Also available online at: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/other/ skip/finalpt1.html#top [last visited 10/01/2003]. Smeaton, A. (1991) ‘Using hypertext for computer-based learning’. Computers and Education, 17(3), 173–9. Smith, A. (1994) ‘A business school approach to flexibility in course provision’. In Flexible Learning in Higher Education, ed.Wade et al., pp. 112–18. London: Kogan Page. Smith, A. (1997) Human Computer Factors: A Study of Users and Information Systems. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Ltd. Smith, M. (1991) Software Prototyping: Adoption, Practice and Management. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Ltd. Spiro, R. and Jeng, J. (1990) ‘Cognitive flexibility and hypertext:Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter’. In Cognition, Education, and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology, ed. D. Nix and R. Spiro, pp. 34–56. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spiro, R., Feltovich, P, Jacobson, M. and Coulson, R. (1991) ‘Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains’. In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:A Conversation, eds T. Duffy and D. Jonassen, pp. 57–76. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sproull, L and Kiesler, S. (1991) Connections: The New Ways of Working in the Networked Organisation. London: MIT. Stamatis, D., Kefalas, P. and Kargidis, T. (1999) ‘A multi-agent framework to assist networked learning’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(3), 201–10. Stringer, E. (1999) Action Research, 2nd edn. California: Sage Publications. Tessmer, M. (1993) Planning and Conducting Formative Evaluations. London: Kogan Page.

Bibliography

141

Thiagarajan, S. (1991) ‘Formative evaluation in performance technology’. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 4(2), 22–34. Thomas, R. (1994) ‘Durable, low-cost, educational software’. Computers and Education, 22(1/2), 65–72. Thorpe M. (1990) Evaluating Open and Distance Learning. Harlow, Essex: Longman Group UK. Toffler,A. (1990) Future Shock. New York: Bantam Books. Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago. University for Industry (2000) Vision of the Way Ahead: Fits Learning into Life. Available at http://www.ufiltd.co.uk/strategic%20plan/english/home.htm [last visited 09/04/03]. Viau, E. (1994) ‘The mind as a channel’. Educational Technology Review, Autumn/Winter 1994, 5–10. Vickery, B. (1973) Information Systems. London: Butterwood and Co Ltd. Wadsworth,Y. (1998) ‘What is participatory action research’. Action Research International, Paper 2. Available online at: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html [last visited 10/01/2003]. Waitley, D. and Tucker, R. (1989) Winning the Innovation Game. New York: Berkley Books. Webber, S. and Johnston, B. (2000) ‘Conceptions of information literacy: New perspectives and implications’. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 381–97. Werdelin, I. (1977) ‘Evaluation’. Manual of Educational Planning. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping School of Education, Linköping University. Whitten, J., Bentley, L. and Barlow, V. (1994) Systems Analysis and Design, 3rd edn. Boston: Richard Irwin Inc. Wild, P. (1994), ‘Flexible learning and information technology in higher education’. In Flexible Learning in Higher Education, eds J.Arfield,A. Smith,W.Wade, and K. Hodgkinson, pp. 35–45. London: Kogan Page Ltd. Wills, C. (1999) ‘Future directions’. In Evaluation of Frameworks for Open and Distance Learning, eds C. Wills, G. Quirchmayr, G. Pernul and D. Khakhar, pp. 137–42, Socrates European Project Report: 56605-CP-1-99-SE-ODL-ODL. Wills, C., Quirchmayr, G., Pernul, G. and Khakhar, D. (1999) Evaluation of Frameworks for Open and Distance Learning. Socrates European Project Report: 56605-CP-1-99-SE-ODL-ODL. Wills, S. and Alexander, S. (2000) ‘Managing the introduction of technology in teaching and learning’. In Changing University Teaching: Reflections on Creating Educational Technologies, ed.T. Evans and D. Nation, pp. 56–72. London: Kogan Page. Wilson, B. (1993) ‘Constructivism and instructional design: Some personal reflections’. In 15th Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations, New Orleans,Association for Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 1132–49. Wise, J. M. (1997) Exploring Technology and Social Space. London: Sage Publications. Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (WiTEC) (2003) ‘WiTEC Home’, WiTEC website, available online at: http://www.witec.net/ [last visited 02/01/04]. Yin, R. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, revised edn. London: Sage Publications. Yourdon, E. and Constantine, L. (1978) Structured Design. New York:Yourdon Press. Zafeiriou, G. (2000) ‘Students’ perceptions of issues arising from and factors influencing group interaction in computer conferencing: A grounded theory approach’, PhD thesis, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1982) Action Research in Higher Education. London: Kogan. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996) ‘Introduction’. In New Directions in Action Research, ed. O. ZuberSkerritt, pp. 3–9. London: Falmer Press. Zucchermaglio, C. (1993) ‘Toward a cognitive ergonomics of educational theory’. In Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, ed. T. Duffy, J. Lowyck and D. Jonassen, pp. 249–60. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Appendix The University of Sheffield Department of Information Studies Module Outline 2000–01 Module Title:

Basic Networked Information and Communication Literacy Skills (NICLS)

Module code: Pre-requisites: Status:

ITM000 None core: MSc ITM approved: MA LIM, MScIM, MSc HIM 0 credits Induction period Dr. Miguel Baptista Nunes and Ms. Maggie McPherson Mariano Rico 15/12/99

Credits: Timetabling: Lecturers: Tutors: Version date:

142

Appendix

143

Aims and description This module aims to provide learners with a core competence of basic communication and information skills, prior to starting the MA in ITM programme. This will allow students effectively to carry out the course learning activities in the selected web-based learning environment. Consequently, the purpose of this premodule is mainly to deliver a hands-on experience with the tools and methods for networked learning that are to be used by learners in a web-based distance education master’s degree course. The module also aims to encourage participants to work collaboratively with their peers, in order to become aware of the potentials and constrains of networked learning.

Objectives By the end of the course, students should be able to: a b c d e f g

Demonstrate proficiency in the use of the technologies used for CMC; Show awareness of the social factors affecting CMC; Use and comply with the different conventions and etiquette for CMC; Communicate effectively and work collaboratively on-line with both peers and tutors; Formulate different searching strategies effectively; Demonstrate knowledge of criteria for evaluating online resources; Evaluate the validity of search findings.

Methods/course delivery The module will be presented via a combination of online activities and tutorials. It runs for five weeks, prior to the start of the first module of the MA in ITM programme. Students are required to spend about six hours per week with different learning activities. Since participation is based to a large extent on on-line discussion and activities, students will need to set aside regular and reasonably frequent times for on-line participation. However, although the level of weekly participation is set at six hours, students’ weekly timetable for the course can be flexible to fit in with changing needs and work patterns.


Syllabus content Week

Theory

Learning activities

1

Introduction to the course and to the ethos of the learning experience Fundamentals of CMC

1 Email 2 Web conferencing

2

Synchronous and asynchronous communication: technical aspects

1 Using chat 2 Case study 1 discussion

3

Synchronous and asynchronous communication: social aspects. Introduction to the coursework project

1 Case study 2 discussion

4

Information search and retrieval in networked environments

1 Using search engines 2 Using the library catalogue 3 Formulating search strategies 4 Case study 3 discussion

5

Networked information evaluation

1 Case study 4 discussion 2 Online production of the coursework report

Assessment No formal assessment is proposed for this module. Students will be assessed on a pass/fail basis by means of a group project that involves the production of collaborative work. Further details of the case study forming the basis of the coursework, along with a list of specific deliverables, is presented during week three.

Indicative reading Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1991) Connections: The New Ways of Working in the Networked Organisation. London: MIT

Index Page numbers in italics refer to Figures in the text academic learning 2–4, 41–2, 78–9 see also REALs action research 7–10 in case study 91, 98–9, 126 criticism of 18 cyclical nature of 9–10 data collection 105–6 defined 7–9 educational informatics 10 educationalists 8–9 EMAR model 27–9, 28 in evaluation 102–3 generic models 16–18 Altrichter and Gstettner 17 Blum 17 Coghlan and Brannick 9, 10, 17, 27 Cohen et al. 17–18 Lewin 14, 17 Stringer 8, 9, 17 model for online learning 19–29 online learning context 10 online learning support 87–8 spiral cycles 27 theory extension 125 active learning see REALs Altrichter and Gstettner’s action research model 17

apprenticeship 37–8 cognitive 40 ASSURE model 26 behaviourism 39, 42, 43–4, 58 Blum’s action research model 17 CAI 58 case study – MA in ITM 30–5, 49–53, 67–76, 88–99, 110–22 aims and objectives 33, 68 alumni 114 assessment 34 assumptions made 89–93 change process 50 COMETT 31–2 conceptual model 69 CPDE 30–1, 49, 50–3, 53 day schools 34, 51, 52, 73, 74, 111–12 dropout 122, 124 entry requirements 33 ESD 67–8 evaluation 110–22 follow-up 114 formative 111–12, 124 methodology 115–16 of problems 114 situated 113 summative 113, 113 future prospects 125–7

146 Developing innovation in online learning history 31–2 implementation model 70, 98 learning environment 34–5 modular structure 33–4, 69, 70, 91–3 Y2PM module (Year 2 Project Management) 71–6, 71–5, 124 see also NICLS online learning 51–3 design and development 67–76 support for students 88–99, 117–19 use of facilities 89–91 pedagogical strategy and model 49–53, 53 programme delivery 33–4 students 33, 89–90 social contacts 115–18 support networks 117–19 use of email 118–19 summarised 123–7 university library 74–5 VSS 93–7, 95, 96, 97 evaluation 115–16, 117, 121–2 low use 119–21 WiTEC 31–2 women’s participation 32 WWW 49 CBI 40, 58 CMC 34–5, 60, 84–5, 86, 91, 143–4 Coghlan and Brannick’s action research cycles 9, 10, 17, 27 cognitive apprenticeship 40 cognitive restructuring 45, 87 cognitivism 43, 58 Cohen et al.’s action research model 17–18 COMETT 31–2 computer aided instruction see CAI computer based instruction see CBI computer mediated communications see CMC conceptual models in educational systems design 58–9 in information systems design 55–7 constructivism 40, 42–7, 52 as epistemology 47 in ESD 61–5 human interaction 45–6 knowledge and reality 44–5 REALs 46–7 continuing professional development education see CPDE CPDE 30–1, 49, 50–3, 53 curriculum design 28–9, 62–4, 70 curriculum development 23, 25–6 cycles of development see experiential learning

data collection 105–6 DE 30–1, 34–5, 91–3 development methodologies 54–7 in information systems 55–7 prototyping 65–7, 65 Dewey, John 40 distance education see DE educational informatics 4–7, 57 action research, usefulness for 10 ICT, role in 6 research context 7 social context 6–7 Educational Management Action Research see EMAR educational psychology 38–9 educational setting EMAR model 28, 29 educational systems design see ESD EMAR model 27–9, 28 in case study 50, 76 educational setting 29 evaluation process 29 organisational context 28 pedagogical model 28–9, 48 e-moderators 80 epistemology 7, 47–8 ESD 57–9 in case study 67–8 constructivist 61–5, 63 curriculum design 62–3 design and specification 63–4 development 64 methodologies 57–9 CAI design model 58 prototyping 65–7, 65 second-generation authoring systems 58 see also VLEs European Commission Community Programme for Education,Teaching and Training see COMETT Study Group on Education and Training 41, 42 evaluation 100–9 action research 102–3 data collection 105–6 EMAR model 28, 29 formative 103–4 framework 107–9 methods 104–5 situated 104 strategies 103–4

Index summative 103 user-based 101–2 see also case study evaluation (of resources) skills 86 ‘Everest syndrome’ 20–1 experiential learning 13–16, 98 cycle of learning (Kolb) 14–15, 15 cycle of learning (Pfeiffer and Ballew) 15–16, 16 group activities 14–15 Lewin’s action research model 13–14, 14, 17 structured activities 14 formative evaluation 103–4, 111–12, 124 human interaction, nature of 45–6 hypermedia 56–7 ICT 4–6 delivery method for online learning 19, 24–5, 31, 108–9 ‘Everest syndrome’ 20–1 use in HE 20 women working in 31–2 informatics 4–7 information evaluation 86 overload 85 searching skills 85–6 shaping 40 society 39 systems design 55–7 information and communication technologies see ICT Information Technology Management (MA) see case study – MA in ITM instructional systems design see ISD interactivity, private and social 45–6 interviewing 106 interveners 80 ISD 61 KBS (knowledge-based systems) 56 knowledge, nature of 44–5 knowledge transfer 3 Kolb’s cycle of learning 14–15, 15 learner behaviour 3 learning academic 2–4, 41–2, 78–9 see also REALs active see REALs

147

activities 44–5, 62 experiential see experiential learning journals 106 life-long 2, 41 online see online learning self-directed 51 situated 42, 44–5, 52, 63, 78–9 social skills in 85, 86–7 technical skills in 85 lecturing 3,4 Lewin’s action research model 13–14, 14, 17 life-long learning 2, 41 managerial roles in tutoring 81 methodologies see development methodologies; ESD networked information and communication literacy skills see NICLS NICLS 83–6, 90–1, 92, 142–4 information evaluation 86 information searching 85–6 online collaboration 84–5 objectivism 3, 38, 39, 41–2, 43–4 observation 106 online collaboration skills 84–5 technical and social aspects 85 online learning ASSURE model 26 benefits for the learner 19–20 curriculum development 23, 25–6 delivery 26–7, 78–88 Salmon’s model 26–7, 81 design 21–2, 23 frameworks 22–3, 27 enabling technologies 23, 24–5 environments 60–7, 82 implementation 22–7 instructional design 23, 26 learning outcomes 25–6 organisational context 23, 24 participation by case study students 35, 50 resistance to use 20, 89 resources 86–7 skills 83–6 support 79–88 action research 87–8 tutoring roles 80–1 tutoring skills 79, 82–3 tutoring strategies 79–81 see also case study; DE; REALs organisational context 23, 24

148 Developing innovation in online learning EMAR model 28, 28 organisational informatics 5 pastoral support 52–3 pedagogical models 36–53 apprenticeship 37–8 cognitive 40 behaviourism 39, 42, 43–4 case study 49–53, 53 constructivism 40, 42–7, 52 educational psychology 38–9 EMAR model 28–9, 28, 48, 50 information shaping 39–40 objectivism 38, 39, 41–2, 43–4 schooling, mass 38 pedagogical roles in tutoring 80 Pfeiffer and Ballew’s cycle of learning 15–16, 16 pluralism 7, 8 positivism 7, 8 problem solving 8–9, 39–40, 42, 47, 56, 87 programmed instruction 39 prototyping 65–7, 65, 95, 95 questionnaires 106, 111–12, 114, 115–17, 123–4 rapid prototyping see prototyping reality, nature of 44–5 REALs 46–7, 60–1, 79 research diaries 106 rich environments for active learning see REALs Salmon’s online learning delivery model 26–7, 81 schooling, mass 38 self-directed learning 51 situated evaluation 104, 113 situated learning 42, 44–5, 52, 63, 78–9 skills shortage 2 Skinner, B. F. 39, 40 social negotiation 15, 45–6, 87

social roles in tutoring 80–1 social skills in learning 85, 86–7 social space see case study – VSS spiral research cycles 27 Stringer’s action research model 8, 9, 17 structured activities 14 summative evaluation 103, 113, 113 teacher training in HE 4 technical roles in tutoring 81 technical skills in learning 85 tutoring roles 80–1 skills 79, 82–3 strategies 79–81 teams 79–80 Tyler’s curriculum development approach 25–6 uniformity in HE 3 University for Industry 49 University of Sheffield Department of Information Studies 30, 49 virtual learning environments see VLEs virtual social space see case study – VSS VLEs 26, 33, 34, 67, 91–3, 108–9 as design tools 59, 60 tool set 109 WebCT 33, 34–5, 49, 70, 92 White Paper on the Future of Higher Education 41, 42 WiTEC 31–2 women participation in ITM MA 32 working in ICT 31–2 Women in Science, Engineering and Technology in European Countries see WiTEC WWW (World Wide Web) 4, 49 Year of Life-Long Learning (1995) 2

Developing Innovation in Online Learning: An Action Research Framework (Open and Flexible Learning Series)

Online Education Using Learning Objects (Open and Flexible Learning)

Student Retention in Online, Open and Distance Learning (Open and Flexible Learning Series)

The Open Classroom: Distance Learning in and out of Schools (Open & Flexible Learning Series)

Interactions in Online Education: Implications for Theory and Practice (The Open and Flexible Learning Series)

500 Tips for Open and Online Learning

500 Tips for Open and Online Learning

Flexible Learning in an Information Society

Teaching as Learning: An Action Research Approach

Developing Thinking; Developing Learning

Developing Thinking; Developing Learning

Machine Learning in Action

New Employee Orientation Training (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series) (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series)

Games And Simulations in Online Learning: Research and Development Frameworks

Integrated E-Learning: Implications for Pedagogy, Technology and Organization (Open and Flexible Learning)

Problem Based Online Learning

An Overview of Online Learning, Second Edition

Teaching Literature at a Distance: Open, Online and Blended Learning

Reconsidering Open and Distance Learning in the Developing World: Meeting Students' Learning Needs

Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching

Learning with Digital Games: A Practical Guide to Engage Students in Higher Education (Open and Flexible Learning Series)

Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

Planning and Developing Open and Distance Learning: A Framework for Quality

Action Learning and its Applications

Action Learning: History and Evolution

Action Learning: History and Evolution

Action Learning and its Applications

Business Driven Action Learning

Learning And Memory. The Brain in Action

Learning and memory: the brain in action

Developing Innovation in Online Learning: An Action Research Framework (Open and Flexible Learning Series)

Online Education Using Learning Objects (Open and Flexible Learning)

Student Retention in Online, Open and Distance Learning (Open and Flexible Learning Series)

The Open Classroom: Distance Learning in and out of Schools (Open & Flexible Learning Series)

Interactions in Online Education: Implications for Theory and Practice (The Open and Flexible Learning Series)

500 Tips for Open and Online Learning

500 Tips for Open and Online Learning

Flexible Learning in an Information Society

Teaching as Learning: An Action Research Approach

Developing Thinking; Developing Learning

Developing Thinking; Developing Learning

Machine Learning in Action

New Employee Orientation Training (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series) (Pergamon Flexible Learning Trainer's Workshop Series)

Games And Simulations in Online Learning: Research and Development Frameworks

Integrated E-Learning: Implications for Pedagogy, Technology and Organization (Open and Flexible Learning)

Problem Based Online Learning

An Overview of Online Learning, Second Edition

Teaching Literature at a Distance: Open, Online and Blended Learning

Reconsidering Open and Distance Learning in the Developing World: Meeting Students' Learning Needs

Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching

Learning with Digital Games: A Practical Guide to Engage Students in Higher Education (Open and Flexible Learning Series)

Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

Planning and Developing Open and Distance Learning: A Framework for Quality

Action Learning and its Applications

Action Learning: History and Evolution

Action Learning: History and Evolution

Action Learning and its Applications

Business Driven Action Learning

Learning And Memory. The Brain in Action

Learning and memory: the brain in action

Recommend Documents