During 1996-97 a distance course was given for 51 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 2-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. Fuller descriptions of this course are 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 groups each. We tried to check the system for messages at least every other day. Thus we followed 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 from us as tutors.
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. We collected all communication in the conferencing system and have analyzed part of the very rich material.
There are many conclusions to be drawn from this course and the material collected. In this work I will focus on one factor: the communication patterns in learning groups.
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.
The patterns 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 get from face expressions and gestures are not at hand. They have to be replaced by other means. Not all students understand this and, if they do, it might take some time for them to "invent" an effective communication pattern.
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. "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). Using technical media for this interaction narrows the repertoire. We need new models to interpret this new environment.
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 (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1998).
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.
* The second stage is reached when the group is faced with issues that require distribution of influence among group members.
* The third stage can be characterised as a period of openness, integration, and trust.
* The fourth stage is when task performance is in focus.
* 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.
"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).
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.
During the autumn of 1998 a study is conducted, that will test the hypothesis about an introduction. 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 offerd a three hours' introduction about how to communicate electronically. Participants were divided into groups of three and each of them got secret instructions. 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 objective 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 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.
The students will be asked to answer questionnaires and the communication in the task groups will be studied in order to find out what effect the introduction had, if any.
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.
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.