Academic Exchange Quarterly Summer 2008 ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 12, Issue 2
To cite, use print source rather than this on-line version which may not reflect print copy format requirements or text lay-out and pagination.
|
This article should not be reprinted for inclusion in any publication for sale without author's explicit permission.
Anyone may view, reproduce or store copy of this article for personal, non-commercial use as allowed by the "Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright law. For any other use and for reprints, contact article's author who may impose usage fee.. See also Academic Exchange Quarterly electronic version copyright clearance CURRENT VERSION COPYRIGHT © MMVIII ACADEMIC EXCHANGE QUARTERLY |
Technical Classes: A
Different Breed of Learning
Paula San Millan Maurino, Farmingdale
Francine Federman, Farmingdale
Paula Maurino, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the
Francine Federman, Ph.D., is the Assistant Dean of the
Lorraine Greenwald, Ph.D., is the Dean of the
Abstract
This study describes the findings of a case study at
Farmingdale State College in
Introduction
Threaded discussions
have become standard fixtures in distance education. The technology is there to “talk” online and
research has shown that the social and cultural environment created by this
“talking” can be beneficial to online students.
It can be useful in decreasing transactional distance problems and can
help develop social relationships among students and the teacher. Social and interpersonal interactions directly
foster content and instructional interaction (Liaw and Huang, 2000) and can
play a key role in the learning process (Trentin, 2000). Social presence is also a good predictor of
learner satisfaction (Gunawardena and Zittle, 1997). Too much social presence,
however, may actually be a detriment to learning (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison,
and Archer, 1999).
Fairly high levels of
social presence are necessary to support the development of deep and meaningful
learning (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer, 1999) and this “deep”
learning is frequently not achieved or seen in analysis of class transcripts. Computer mediated communication may serve as more
of a support system for other online activities (Guzdial etal., 2002).
Educational researchers
have analyzed online interaction extensively. The results of countless online
class transcripts and databases have been categorized, classified, graphed and
summarized. Researchers have critiqued the quality and quantity of student
participation within these databases with varying results. Before a true and valid evaluation can be made
of online threaded discussions and other tools, research must start at the beginning.
Faculty must be contacted and interviewed to describe just what they are trying
to accomplish using these tools. It is only then that the results can be
compared to the objectives.
This study looked at online threaded discussions from the
standpoint of the instructor. What are the purposes, goals and objectives set
by online instructors for the utilization of threaded discussions? Further, does academic discipline or the
technical nature of a course affect the instructor’s objectives and goals for
online threaded discussions from the standpoint of cognitive presence, social
presence and teacher presence?
Methodology
This project utilized a
case study approach at
The script for the
interviews was tested with a pilot study of private school online instructors. The
interviews were taped, transcribed to a Word transcript template, and then transferred
to a document that mapped the interview questions to the research questions and
objectives.
During the interviews,
the interviewees were asked to permit the researcher access to the online
discussion threads of their classes or to provide a list of “starter” questions
utilized by the instructor. The analysis of these “starter” questions and the
databases served to provide triangulation for the research study.
The starter questions
and databases were analyzed simultaneously with the interviews. The
face-to-face interviews revealed what the instructor hoped to accomplish.
Analysis of the instructor’s “starter” questions or the actual class database
transcripts showed if the instructor actually did what he or she set out to do.
This comparison served as a form of triangulation.
The actual questions
from the list provided by the instructor or from the actual database transcripts
were analyzed using Engestrom’s (2002) Two Models of Learning and Ngeow and
Kong’s (2003) Learning through Discussion Model.
Engestrom (2002)
described two models of learning. Model A provides tasks that focus on learners
finding correct solutions and fixing false ones. Model B provides complex tasks
where solution ideas and their justifications will vary. Model B learning is focused
on principles of the task and solutions are achieved by comparing, arguing, and
debating (Engeström, Engeström and Suntio, 2002).
Ngeow and Kong (2003)
categorized discussion tasks into
four areas: 1. Guided Discussion Task; 2.Inquiry-Based Discussion Task; 3.
Reflective Discussion Task; and 4. Exploratory
Discussion Task (Ngeow and Kong, 2003). Within
these four types of discussion tasks are successive stages of instructor
direction, student involvement and degree of participation, responsiveness to
other students, problem solving and critical thinking skills. Each question
posed by the online teacher within the threaded discussion was categorized
using both methods and the results entered in a table. Data from the interviews and the analysis of
the starter questions and database transcripts were synthesized and integrated.
Three focus groups of
online faculty from private colleges in the area were then convened to compare
and/or validate the outcomes from the other data gathering techniques. The data derived from the initial interviews
and document observations were used as discussion start up points for the focus
group.
Further, during the
Farmingdale interviews, it was noted that several of the Farmingdale faculty
also teach or have taught online at other colleges. Follow up sessions were conducted
with five of these faculty members to confirm conclusions about recurring
themes and integration with both the previous data and literature review.
Research
Questions
The main research
question was: What are the purposes, goals and objectives set by online
instructors for the utilization of threaded discussions? Five sub
questions branched out from the main research question:
1. How do faculty
evaluate the success and value of online discussions?
2. Are threaded
discussions valued for social or cognitive purposes or both?
3. Do instructor
characteristics influence the purposes, goals, and objectives of online
threaded discussions?
4. Do student
characteristics (age, gender, ability/intelligence, maturity/life
and work experience) influence the purposes, goals, and objectives of online
threaded discussions?
5. Do academic discipline
and the educational level of students affect the purposes and objectives set by
the instructor for threaded discussions within online courses?
All five sub research
questions were paralleled by objectives to be achieved during the investigation. This paper is concerned with research
question number five and one of the objectives set for that sub question:
o
Determine
how classes perceived as “technical” may affect the instructor’s objectives and
goals for online threaded discussions from the standpoint of cognitive
presence, social presence and teacher presence.
Interview
Results
Twenty-seven percent of
the instructors described their classes as technical. Fifty percent described
their classes as non-technical and twenty-three percent stated that they taught
both technical and non-technical online classes. Technical was described to the instructors as
defined in this study as a course that is devoted to learning a specific skill.
Forty-seven percent of
the instructors (14 out of 30) stated that they considered their online
discussions successful. Twenty percent (6 out of 30) stated that their online
discussions were not successful. The remaining ten instructors (33%) evaluated
their online discussions as less than successful but not quite unsuccessful.
Academic discipline and
the nature of the course taught were often mentioned as factors that could
affect the quality of class discussions. When asked the best courses for online
discussions, the typical answers were liberal arts and humanities courses such
as literature, philosophy, history and psychology. The worst courses mentioned
for discussions were math classes such as calculus and statistics and business/programming
classes such as accounting or database. Comments included, “What do you say
about fractions?” “What do you talk about in accounting?”
Technical
Classes
“Technical” classes were
seen as unique and different than other classes in the study. It was the most significant distinction made
when discussing online threaded discussions with faculty and when analyzing
source documents.
The Focus and Objective of the Course
What is it that makes a
technical class different? As stated
previously, technical was described to the instructors as defined in this study
as a course that is devoted to learning a specific skill. The learning of this specific skill is the
main focus and objective of the entire course.
Students are immersed in “doing” or “making” as opposed to building a general
knowledge foundation. Offline, these
classes may not even be taught in a classroom. They may be taught in a laboratory
of some type. Offline, these classes may
not even have a class discussion or participation component. Demonstrations and tutoring may be required
and may not be available online.
Does moving the
technical class online change the nature and focus of the class? The majority of the instructors seemed to
feel that it did, but that they did not necessarily see this as a detriment to
the course or learning outcomes. There
was, however, concern. Were students
being moved from active learning to passivity?
There was no agreement about whether talking about a topic or activity
is as important as actually being able to perform that activity.
Discussion Topics.
What to Talk About?
Technical instructors
mentioned the problem of finding appropriate topics to discuss and stated that
discussion takes away from the time needed for the real objective of the course
– learning to make or do something. Some
instructors used online discussions to look at current trends and events in
industry. Others stated that some students
thought of these discussions as “busy work” that takes time away from what they
are supposed to be doing.
Student Time Constraints
Some instructors stated
that the addition of online threaded discussions to a hands-on course increases
the amount of time students must put in to complete the course requirements. An alternative is to shorten the time
allocated to hands-on activities. Instructors
worried that this may unfavorably affect successful achievement of the original
objectives and learning outcomes of the course.
Time Delay
In a liberal arts
course, a delayed response from the instructor of a few days may not be
critical. This may not be the case in a
technical class. If a student is
required to complete a project or program at home and runs into a problem, a
delay of several days in contacting the instructor and finding the solution may
be critical. A minor correction that can be made by a “live” instructor in minutes
may require days to correct online.
Time Constraints of Instructors
Other faculty concerns
related to the time required for instructors of technical courses. If time lags
are more important in a technical class, does this mean that the instructor
needs to be accessible more often? Is it
fair to require an instructor of a technical course to be more available than a
non-technical instructor?
Additional Requirements
Online technical courses
may require students to have specific software programs or equipment at
home. Not all students may have this
equipment or software. Students must be
able to successfully load and set up this equipment themselves. Frequently, the instructor must allow
additional time at the start of the semester to accommodate this equipment/software
installation. If there is a problem with
the installation, the student may not be able to complete or even start the
online course. There may or may not be a
school lab available (local student) or other option available (distant student).
Further, can the results of the technical activity be transferred back and
forth between teacher, student and other students?
Interaction Shift
Current literature,
including this study itself, points to the need for and benefit of group and
social interaction. Yet, the instructors
pointed out that technical classes may have different needs in this area.
The need for more
one-on-one student-to-teacher interaction was reported by most technical
instructors. Others stated that some students need more one-on-one interaction
and some don’t need any. Some students “just get it” and do not have to talk
about it.
Group interaction, if
there is any, more often revolves around one student asking others for
help. How does this change the social
dynamics of the class? Are stronger
students willing to help and provide scaffolding for the weaker students?
Administrative concerns
Can the administration
require teachers of technical classes to have different workload requirements
than other teachers? Can the size of the
class be altered based on the nature of the course? If the course does require changes online,
how does that impact the same courses taught in traditional classrooms or
labs? How does that require modification
of the curriculum in other classes?
Conclusion
What implications does
this have for online technical as well as non-technical instructors? Online
instructors may need to rethink their learning strategies and methods if they
hope to achieve success in the goals they set. Individual learning activities
may need to be turned into group or social activities. Online class management
systems permit public viewing of all documents. Individual assignments of any
type from a programming project to a financial spreadsheet can be shared with
the whole class. Breaking up a programming assignment and assigning each
student a part of it may promote more social and cognitive learning online than
having the student construct the entire program alone.
Instead of research
papers, or in addition to them, instructors might try role playing or debates
on issues and topics relevant to the course. The use of
Another practical issue
mentioned was the amount of time needed for reading and responding to
discussion entries. Students do not respond if they are overwhelmed with other
class work. Discussions in the classroom do not require additional outside
work. Online discussions do. Instructors may need to modify online course
activities and grading policies to reflect and account for this time issue.
Combining the discussion with another learning activity, particularly a problem
based activity, may be a good solution. An online class is not exactly the same
as a face-to-face class. The same books, activities and grading policies may
not work.
Most instructors
appeared to feel that by participating in the discussion they were keeping students
from becoming “active” learners. Yet, in a typical undergraduate face-to-face
classroom, an instructor would not ask a question and then sit down and let the
students run the lesson. Some instructors want to have the comfort of the class
participation genre, but they have changed their rules for participation once
the course moves online in the name of “active” learning. Instructors need to
find a better balance between participating to encourage and challenge, yet
still allowing the conversations to be student-driven.
Time constraints for
faculty are a valid concern. This was mentioned frequently during the
interviews and the focus groups. Faculty may want to participate in the discussions,
but do not have time to do so. Thus, they will not be able to achieve the goals
they have set. Faculty schedules and work load should be modified as needed.
Class size may also be
an issue. A physical classroom with forty students is not equivalent to a
virtual classroom with forty students. A technical class requiring more
one-on-one interaction is definitely in a different category. Online classes can be broken up into groups,
but this requires more time and effort on the part of the instructor and makes
the time issue even worse.
The academic school or
discipline did not have a strong effect on the goals set or use of discussions.
However, the fact that a course was “technical” in any discipline was considered
distinctive. Technical classes have unique problems and may require a different
type of online class as well as technological improvements to the virtual
classroom. Technical classes may require
different textbooks and learning strategies.
Online classes cannot be
viewed simply as face-to-face classes moved to the Internet. They are the same
in some ways and different in others.
References
Engeström, Y., R. Engeström, and A. Suntio, A. (2002) “From
paralyzing myths to expansive action: Building computer-supported knowledge
work into curriculum from below.” In Computer support for collaborative
learning: Foundations for a CSCL community, 318-324.
Gunawardena, C.
N., and F. Zittle, (1997) “Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction
within a computer mediated conferencing environment.” American Journal of
Distance Education 11(3): 8
-26.
Guzdial, M., P.
Lodovice, M. Realf, T. Morley, and K. Carroll (2002) “When
collaboration doesn't work.” Paper
presented at the 5th. International
Conference of the Learning Sciences,
Liaw, S.and H.
Huang (2000) “Enhancing interactivity in Web-based instruction: A review of the
literature.” Educational Technology, 40 (3), 41-45.
Ngeow, Karen and Yoon-San Kong (2003) “Learning through
discussion: Designing tasks for critical
inquiry and reflective learning.” The
Clearinghouse on
Rourke,
Liam, Terry Anderson, Randy Garrison, and Walter Archer (1999) “Assessing
social presence in asynchronous text based computer conferencing.” Journal
of Distance Education 14 (3): 51-70.
Trentin,
G. (2000) “The quality interactivity relationship in distance education.” Educational
Technology 40 (1): 17-26.