LEARNER SUPPORT

Traditional students may be classified as younger and perhaps still attending or fresh out of high school. These students may require more attention in the areas of socialization. Mature students on the other hand, may be older and working on advanced degrees while balancing family and career. Mature students are more likely to be involved with wholly online courses whereas traditional students may be involved more in adjunct and mixed modes of online delivery. There seems to be juxtaposition here, as adult or post-graduate learners are less comfortable with the technology associated with networked distance learning, while at the same time, they are socially better candidates for it.

There is no doubt that a vast majority of young, computer savvy students are already familiar with synchronous and asynchronous computer based communication. They know how to intuitively log-on to discussion areas such as ICQ or MultiCity, join interest groups, use new linguistic syntaxes, send and retrieve files, and use email. While vacationing last summer in Northern Ontario, I learned that by cleverly obtaining your IP address, some of these kids can perform a multitude of sins. They can listen to the room noise in your home (if you have a microphone plugged in), view exactly what you are doing on your screen in real-time, and examine, alter or delete the files on your hard drive. I watched in disbelief as they demonstrated how they could retrieve passwords and Visa numbers from your cache, and even reboot your computer. A couple of 15-year-olds conducted the demonstration. Shocking. One wonders what sorts of students and even educators some of these teenagers will become, and how they will view our present paradigm dilemma.

Obviously a large chasm exists between those that know and those that know not in regards to advanced uses of network technology. If we are to create learning programs that appeal to a large cross-section of the population, we have much to contend with. Maintaining the interest of technology savvy learners while dealing with those that have just discovered what an icon is, may be a formidable task. From my own recent experiences conducting a number of technology workshops for adult educators, it typically took half of the group 2 minutes to log-on and create global user accounts in WebCT. Even after careful instruction, the other half delayed the workshop by 20 minutes or so, and I had to examine and correct the various forms of chaos that had been created by these rather impulsive new users. It was not uncommon for these participants to attempt to justify the reasons why computer technology was not needed in their domain, or even for them to explain how ‘stupid’ the whole concept of CMC was in the first place. The acquisition of knowledge and skills usually leads to understanding and changes in attitudes for these people, but the fact is that there can be significant technical skill differences in groups.

Getting back to what I mentioned earlier about certain students having a technological edge over others, one sees a need to carefully devise a way to enable technology for everyone. This could translate into closer monitoring of students by tutors, or even by separating the group initially until a certain level of competency is reached. Prerequisites for computer literacy may have to be considered during the student intake stage as well, but is that fair and socially democratic? I contend that by getting learners past the functional basics quickly and encouraging them to focus on the tasks at hand rather than the complexity of the technology will increase confidence and levels of participation.
 

Aside from differences in technical aptitudes or knowledge, bringing an international group of people together online transcends ‘netiquette’ and must contend with a multitude of cultural and background differences. These are typically revealed in the early dialogue exchanged in an online course. In the online course I participated in that produced this paper, I noted the following (random) submissions at the beginning of the course:
 

What follows are examples posted a few weeks later from the same course that are characteristic of online group dynamics that address these types of ‘difference’ issues:
 

One month into the same course, typical responses included these types of statements:
 

By considering the above, we can see that learners initially ‘tested the waters’ of the environment and then eventually progressed to a stage where active knowledge building was taking place within a community. Gilly Salmon (1998), of the U.K. Open University notes that there is a 5-step process or flow which suggests how learners chronologically move through CMC, and refers to monitoring and intervention more as ‘moderating’. 

1. Access – learners become familiar and comfortable with the technology and online environment. 
2. Socialization – meeting and developing relationships with others.
3. Information Sharing – open and confident sharing of information and viewpoints.
4. Knowledge Construction – reflecting on submissions and linking issues together.
5. Development and Value of Students as Moderators – less tutor and more student moderation which encourages more active learning among the group.

As we have seen, as well as sharing knowledge and insights in an online environment, participants come together to form a social community offering tolerance, support and encouragement for each other. So then, not only is the individual building of knowledge in interaction with the environment (cognitive construction) apparent, connection with and appropriation from a more sociocultural context (social constructivism) is also apparent. This reminds me of films and movies where groups of strangers are precariously imprisoned, shipwrecked or otherwise put into a common situation and must dynamically work out functional roles and relationships to ensure the survival of the individual and the group. Creating and maintaining common ground in online dialogue is essential. It could simply be that the common interest the participants share in the nature of the course content itself makes for a shared, situated reality.
 

EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

The need for feedback through data collection, analysis and interpretation to maximize the quality of learning is critical. Although this topic deserves to be discussed on its own in a future paper, I offer up a few important points for consideration here.

First off, we must consider what is being evaluated. It could be the quality of the online environment, the cost factors per student or the quality of student learning. All are obviously related. It is important to note that assessment is not the same as evaluation, and is more concerned with the summative and formative analysis of the learning achieved in a course. Ongoing formative assessment online can provide impetus for the timely completion of tasks.

By complying with good teaching practice and applying keen observation, critical data can be recorded. I believe that it is important to use a multidisciplinary approach whenever possible to verify findings. 
 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

There has been much activity in the area of networked online learning lately. Recognizing the changing face of teaching and learning in technology-rich, learner-centered environments has lead to more focus on pedagogically sound instruction. Consequently, educators have (rightfully) received more recognition as providers and/or creators of quality instruction, and also as key players in its successful implementation. Institutions must recognize this and offer the proper support and incentives required which enable teachers to take ownership in technology-based teaching and learning practices. Teachers should at least be aware of what an institution’s goals are, if not proactive in creating the vision, strategic plans and other decisions and policies that will impact on the networked delivery of quality education, or even more so, on the learner.

The acquisition of technical skills is necessary for teachers, but more importantly, they must learn how to develop and monitor meaningful, interactive tasks using advanced learning technology. A continuum of online modes exists which can help define and determine where a course or program fits in relation to an institution’s vision and strategies. Situational awareness is essential at all levels within an educational organization, in order to eliminate misconceptions.

There are certain characteristics of networked learning environments that must be considered when developing instruction. Critical thinking skills can be developed through the combining and application of good teaching practice, learning theory, instructional design and technology. Multi-modal representations are important to appeal to dominant and auxiliary learning modalities in learners, and multidimensional representations can foster flexible cognition.

The labor market requires individuals with skills and abilities to work in collaborative communities. Through networked asynchronous communication, the establishment of collaborative communities of knowledge can scale up to and accommodate many types of learners, and offer more situated learning experiences. Social-cultural issues are also addressed through this medium.

Equal opportunities for all learners to participate fully can be achieved by concentrating on the online activities rather than the technology, and by guiding first time users through the access stage. By skillfully monitoring and moderating online participation, tutors can assist learners in moving comfortably from the access stage through to higher levels. Peers may also act as moderators.

The ideal collaborative learning environment supports social-cultural, pedagogical and technology needs. This includes:

• tools for communication and information access 
• communities of peers, mentors and experts
• multiple representations including archived discussions for clarity and diversity

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bates, A.W. (2000) Managing Technological Changes, Strategies for College and University Leaders, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA, 94104

Bates, A.W. (1997) Restructuring for Technological Change [Available at: http://bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/]

Bates, A. W. (1995) Technology, open learning and distance education. Open Learning and Distance Education London: Routledge, 0-41S-12799-8

BBC News (2000) Universities told to catch the e-wave [Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_642000/642843.stm] Tuesday, February 15

BBC News (2000b) Online degree courses double [Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_681000/681072.stm] Friday, March 17

Bonk, C. & Cummings, J. (1999) A Ten Level Web Integration Continuum for Higher Education: New Resources, Partners, Courses and Markets [Available at: http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk/paper/edmdia99.html]

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42

Crook, C. (1994) Learning within peer collaborations. Chapter in Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge

Dewey, J. (1977) Democracy and Education (1916), New York: Free Press

Dillenbourg, P. (1999) What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches Amsterdam: Pergamon

Harasim, L. (1997, [90,95]) Network learning: a paradigm for the twenty-first century. In L Harasim, S R Hiltz, L Teles, & M Turoff Learning Networks: a field guide to teaching and learning online Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press

IBHE - Illinois Board of Higher Education (1999), [Available at: http://www.ibhe.state.il.us/Tech/index.htm#iven]

IHEP - Institute for Higher Education Policy for the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (1999) Distance Learning in Higher Education
[Available at: http://www.ihep.com/PUB.htm#diff]

Goodyear, P., Steeples, C. (1998) Asynchronous multimedia conferencing in continuing professional development: issues in the representation of practice through user-created videoclips, Lancaster University

Jones, C. (1997) Taking without consent: Stolen knowledge and the place of abstractions and assessment in situated learning, Lancaster University

Jonassen, D. (1996) Computer-mediated communication: connecting communities of learners. Chapter 7 in Computers in the classroom: mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Merrill, Prentice Hall

Koeppel, D. (1999) Distance Learning: A Sampler of Cybershools, New York Times, April 4

Koschmann, T. (1996) Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: an introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Isabel Briggs-Myers and Mary H. McCaulley (1985) A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press.

Massey, William F. (1997) Life on the Wired Campus: How Information Technology Will Shape Institutional Futures, in C Golds The Learning Revolution: The Challenge of Information Technology in the Academy, Bolton, NY: Anker Publishing Co

McConell (1994) Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning, Kogan Page, 0.7494.0946.0

Mills, R., Tait, A. (unknown) supporting the Learner in Open and Distance Learning, In Computer-mediated learning and its potential, Tony Nixon and Gilly Salmon,  Pitman Publishing, 0-273-62316-8

NCES – National Centre for Education Statistics (2000) Washington, DC [Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/]

Nixon, A. & Salmon, G. (1996) Computer-mediated learning and its potential. In R Mills and A Tait (Eds) Supporting the learner in open and distance learning. London: Pitman

Nobel, D. F. (1998) Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education [Available at: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_1/noble/index.html]

Nobel, D. F. (1998) Digital Diploma Mills III: The Bloom is Off the Rose [Available at: http://www.bufa.org/issues/digital3.htm]

Phipps, R. & Merisotis, J. (1999) What’s the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Education, The Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC [Available at: http://www.ihep.com/PUB.htm#diff]

Ragan, L. C. (1998) Good Teaching is Good Teaching: An Emerging Set of Guiding Principles and Pratices for the Design and Development of Distance Education, DEOSNEWS Vol. 8, No. 12 [Available at: http://www.ed.psu.edu/ACSDE/]

Rief, Sandra F. (1993) How to Reach and Teach ADD/ADHD Children. New York: Center for Applied Research in Education. 

Romiszowski, A. J. & Ravitz, J.(1997) Computer mediated communication. In C R Dills & A J Romiszowski Instructional development paradigms Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

Snow, R. E. & Swanson, J.(1992). Instructional psychology: Aptitude, 
adaptation, and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 583-626.

Soloman, B. S.(1992) Inventory of learning styles. [Available at: http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html.]

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, R. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992) Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.) Constructivism and the technology of instruction, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Teare, Davies and Sandeland (1998) The Virtual University - tomorrow's learning organisation? Introduction chapter to The Virtual University- an action paradigm and process for workplace learning

WebQuest (2000), Templates for online instruction [Available at: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/webquest/webquest.html]