Experiences from a distance course using an electronic conferencing system have yielded two conclusions: 1. Communication patterns in learning groups need to be improved. 2. Tutors need support. Theories are discussed. To test solutions, a study has been initiated.
During 1996-97 a distance course was conducted for 51 Swedish high-school teachers about how to use the Internet pedagogically in their teaching at school. The course ran during half a year and the participants studied part time, parallel with their ordinary full-time work as teachers. This was made possible through a course outline with only two two-and-a-half day face-to-face meetings, one at the beginning and one at the end. In the meantime participants communicated with each other and with the teachers through the electronic conferencing system FirstClass for asynchronous text communication. A fuller description of this course is found in Männikkö & Fåhræus (1997).
The pedagogical model of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) was applied in a flexible way in the course. Ten task groups formed themselves dynamically during the first face-to-face meeting around themes that the participants found interesting. These task groups collaborated during the whole course via the conferencing system, using the system also for delivering reports, asking questions, and discussing general matters around the course.
We were two teachers tutoring five task groups each. We tried to check the conferencing system for messages at least every other day, following the progress of the group work. We avoided intervening in the group discussions and did not answer questions immediately, thus encouraging the participants to help each other. This was in line with the pedagogical model used: to encourage independence in the participants.
To collect and systematize experiences from the course we used mainly qualitative methods. The participants were to answer three questionaires, one before the course started, one in the middle, and one at the end of the course. They were asked to keep electronic diaries on their learning process. All communication in the conferencing system was collected and sampled parts of the very rich material have been analyzed.
As teachers, we felt that this kind of course demands more preparation and more time to read all material produced, compared with a similar type of course, conducted in a traditional way. The fact that all that is "said" in the groups is written and visible to the tutor means that the tutor gets a good picture of the contribution to the group work by each and every participant. But it does not mean that the tutor can activate an inactive group. As earlier mentioned, we did not want to intervene if not necessary. That would have meant that we took the responsibility away from the group members. But when we found that a group did not start to work or that the work stopped, we thought we had to do something. We tried to encourage as soon as there was a sign of action, and we prodded by asking questions about their progress and so on. But still, we saw very little result of these efforts. Inactive groups still did not manage to complete the course assignments.
The analysis of the group communication has shown that the communication patterns were different in the groups. Participants in successful groups gave each other frequent feedback and kept in contact several times a week. Less successful groups communicated either very seldom or in a more individualistic way: One person wrote a contribution; after a while there might be a contribution from someone else - but without reference to the former.
There are many conclusions to be drawn from this course and the material collected. In this work, I will focus on two factors: (2.1.) the communication patterns in learning groups and (2.2.) the tutor's work situation.
The patterns which persons have developed for communication face to face are of little use when communicating only via text in an electronic conferencing system. They may even hinder. The spontaneous and fast feedback we ordinarily and almost automatically get from face expressions and gestures are not at hand. They have to be replaced by other means. Not all students understoond this and, if they did, it might have taken some time for them to "invent" an effective communication pattern.
The lack of spontaneous feedback is not the only difference between communication face to face and via an electronic conferencing system. The time lag and the conservation of the written words are other factors that induce the need of new communication patterns.
How can we support the development of an effective communication pattern in learning groups?
The main reason to use group discussions via a conferencing system is of course the possibility to learn and to tutor at a time and place you yourself choose. But another benefit from the teacher's perspective is the possibility to "listen to" the group discussions and thus to notice if an individual or a group needs help or a push.
In order to take advantage of this, the tutor has to read a great amount of text. This takes time and makes it difficult to get an overview over each participant's contribution and activity, compared to the whole course.
Can we create some kind of support for the tutor that would make it possible to grade contributions at the first reading and then get an overview of the student's activity and learning results?
With a humanistic perspective we regard communication as "a tool to develop the potential of someone through social interaction" (Barón, 1996, p. 164). When we interact face to face, we use a broad repertoire of signals and interlocutors impact on each other's behaviour on many levels. Using technical media for this interaction narrows the repertoire. We need new models to interpret this new environment. "Countless generations have enabled us to respond promptly (and generally quite accurately) to the affordances offered, say, by a ripe apricot, a girl's smile, or a seat in the shade on a hot day" (Mantovani, 1996, p 67).
In order to deal with their assignments in due time, the task groups of our course had to start an effective communication in one or two months. This is a short peroid to develop a new model of communication. Some of the participants had some practice of electronic communication when the course started and there is reason to believe that those helped the others. Participants in successful groups gave each other frequent feedback and refered to other's contributions.
Groups collaborating with a common task usually pass through similar stages. Five stages can be described in the following manner (Wendelheim, 1997, pp. 16-17 ):
* The initial stage is focused on issues of membership. This is when group members try to find out how to behave in the group in order to be accepted by other group members and by a leader. The interaction is tentative and polite. There is much ambiguity and anxiety about goals and procedure. "Thus, of primary importance during this stage are the individual members' inclusion needs."
* The second stage is reached when the group is faced with issues that require distribution of influence among group members. Conflicts can arise when interpersonal dominance and competition are handled. According to the theories, these early conflicts are important for the group to develop stability, openness, trust, and cohesiveness.
* The third stage can be characterised as a period of openness, integration, and trust. Members exchange feedback, ideas, opinions, and feelings and maintain an appropriate balance between concern for task performance and relationships among members.
* The fourth stage is when task performance is in focus. When the group has reached this stage it has the capacity to function fully as a cohesive work group, committed to the task.
* The fifth stage is the final one when roles and tasks are terminated.
There were signs in our material that the successful groups had passed the first two stages during the first face-to-face meeting. This means that they entered the distant phase with open minds and as rather integrated groups. After a short planning process they started to work with their tasks.
Other groups were still mainly struggling with questions about membership and influence. In some cases this resulted in members left out of the group work.
"Symbolic order, if it is not shared, cannot ensure the intelligibility and reciprocity of actors' conduct. Conversely, when symbolic order not only functions properly but is also enhanced in its role as map of social and physical environments, communication and cooperation among actors are greatly facilitated" (Mantovani, 1996, p. 55).
If members of a group belong to the same culture and use the same symbolic frame, they usually manage to interprete each other's messages. (Mantovani, 1996). But different symbolic orders can lead to problems.
The meaning of the conferencing system as a place for collaboration and communication was not quite obvious and self evident to the participants in our course. It had to be negotiated and exemplified through the behaviour of the members (Harrison & Dourish, 1996).
"Is this a place where I publish my results or can I develop my ideas and argue about other's opinions?"
"Do I have to be careful and use a correct language?"
"Am I supposed to comment on all contributions or will that contaminate the discussion?"
The character of the discussions among our task groups shifted and it is impossible to say that one was right, the other one wrong. But a certain degree of reciprocity certainly helped the understanding and collaboration.
Activity theory diffferentiates between three levels: activity, action, and operation. Activities have motives, actions are directed towards a goal that we are concious of, and operations are automated actions (Hasan, Gould & Hyland, 1997, p.12).
Our distance course was an activity and from the students' perspective, the motive was to learn about the Internet and how to use it in their teaching. Anoher motive was to get in contact with colleagues on other schools with the same interest. As an example of an action we can mention the diary. An operation is writing one specific sentence in the diary.
Seen from the tutor's perspective, motives for the course were to collect material for the research and to get experience of tutoring at a distance. An action was to follow the discussions within the task groups and an operation is to read a specific contribution.
The problems and possibilities that we have experienced belong to all three levels. On the activity level, there is a possible conflict of motives between tutors and students. On the action level we see the possibility to "listen to" discussions in task groups and thus make better assessments of the student's contributions to the group work and the learning results. Students experienced difficulties in knowing how well they were doing.
On the operation level, the tutor has the problem to read a huge amount of text, keeping the overview of each student's performance. From a student's perspective, problems with the technology are examples of operation level problems.
1. Collaborating via electronic conferencing systems demands new communication patterns.
2. When collaborating via electronic conferencing systems for the first time most students do not use an efficient communication pattern.
3. Until it has passed the stages 1, 2 and 3 in the described model a group does usually not collaborate efficiently.
4. Students are not always aware of stages in group processes.
5. There ought be a means to help students to learn a communication pattern that works in electronic conferencing systems and to take advantage of the group process.
The following hypothesis is formulated:
One can improve the efficiency in distance learning by introducing the participants to the special character of electronic conferencing systems communication and group processes. Such an introduction ought to be based on the students' experiences and actions.
To take advantage of the possibilities at the action level and in order to solve the problems at the operation level, we have designed additional support functions to an electronic conferencing system. The support functions are:
* Possibility for the tutor to grade students' contributions immediately upon reading them.
* Possibility for the student to read the grades, assigned to their own contributions and to read the mean value on the others.
* Possibility for the tutor to get an overview over each student's grades.
During the autumn term of 1998 we are conducting a study that will test the hypothesis about communication introduction. At the same time we will try out the support functions added to the conferencing system. This is done on a distance course called "People, computers, and community", which is using an electronic conferencing system as communication medium.
At the beginning of the course, 50% of the students were offered an introduction of three hours. Participants were divided into groups of three and each group member got a different and secret instruction. One was a sender, the second participant was a receiver and the third one was an observer. The sender was supposed to try to get the receiver interested in joining a club. The receiver should play a role: either "the interested listener", "the sceptical", or "the uninterested receiver of the information". The obljective of this excercise was to let the paricipants experience how difficult it is to communicate if you do not have the opportunity to give and get positive feedback.
After the excercise, we had time for reflection and discussion about the means of giving feedback in an electronic conferencing system and the consequences of that. We also discussed group processes, and how they might influence the work in the task groups, communicating at a distance.
The students will be asked to answer questionnaires about how they have experienced their own and their peer students' communication. The communication in the task groups will be saved electronically and studied in order to find out what effect the introduction had, if any.
In order to find out how well the support functions are working, the tutor's activity is logged. The tutor will also be interviewed and possible improvements will be discussed.
Barón, A., Jr. Communication Theory. P. 164 in R. J. Corsini & A. J. Auerbach (Eds). Concise Encyclopedia of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996.
Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems. Proceedings of ACM Conference on CSCW, Boston, USA November 1996: P. 67-76.
Hasan, H., Gould, E., & Hyland, P. Activity Theory and HCI: Research and Practice. Tutorial Notes, The Sixth IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 1997.
Männikkö, S. & Fåhræus, E., Creating Places For Teaching and Learning. Proceedings, ICTE97. URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~evafaahr/CP.html
Männikkö, S. & Fåhræus, E., "Are you Still There?!" About Mediated Communication in Teaching and Learning. Proceedings IFIP Teleteaching 98
Wendelheim, A., Effectivness and Process in Experiential Group Learning, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University 1997.