This paper was developed for Elearn 2006 where the topic was presented as a poster.
Abstract: This action research paper explores the use of the chat
room for synchronous online discussion for students as an alternative to the
asynchronous discussion boards. This approach enhances the depth of learning
through increased student participation by providing in some ways a better
learning environment. The preparation for promoting this scheme and facilitating
students to develop the skills needed, is vital to the success of this
approach. The skills of facilitation include those from a face-to-face approach
blended with IT skills to enable learning to take place and adding transparency
to the process of facilitation.
Introduction
A module related to teaching and
learning within the workplace, has been developed for open learning delivery by
the author at master’s level. This is a Blended Learning module, as learners
meet face-to-face on a few occasions (six - three hour sessions over a period
of twelve weeks) for group discussions after having worked through discussion
guides (provided as learning material). There is also an additional two hours
of academic support tutorial provided to every student. To further increase
flexibility and convenience for the learners a WebCT learning environment was
developed. This site provides module information, discussion guides and a
communication area. Since this is an unfamiliar method of learning and
teaching, the author introduced the format in the form of ‘blended programme’ (Kennedy 2005) where part of the delivery is via face to face
teaching and part via the Internet (Smith 2001).
Tutorial support is provided by one to one, face to face and
telephone tutorials, group meetings as well as online via e-mail, discussion boards
and chat rooms through WebCT. Initially the chat room was used for group
tutorials which were interspersed with the class room sessions to encourage
continuity of support. Also a discussion board was provided to allow for
asynchronous discussions of the concepts and theories as a part of tutor and
peer support system. However, both the discussion board and chat room facility
was not used effectively. This is very much in keeping with Glen’s (2005)
suggestion that the focus of using technology is still perceived as
presentation of content rather than a medium for engaging the learners. Haigh
(2004) also agrees that while the core infrastructure of technology is in place
within the educational institutions we have not yet taken advantage of its
potential to enhance the learning experience. Upon evaluation a need to improve
the interactivity and facilitation within the WebCT was clearly evident in
relation to student motivation and IT skills as well as effectiveness of
facilitation verses student perception of learning.
The Study
Action research was the approach
taken to improve the use of chat room for the facilitation of learning. The
four principles highlighted by Cormack (2000) underpin the study. There is ‘collaboration between the research and
participants’, in this case the students, the facilitator and colleagues.
It allowed the ‘finding of a solution to
the problem’ of improving student learning experience through the use of
WebCT. This would lead to a ‘change in practice’ on the part of both
students and facilitator to effectively use the chat room and ‘development of theory’ for future
use. This represents the dynamic spiral
of theory practice development since the feedback can be immediately acted
upon. The collaborative approach increases validity as the bias of the facilitator
is balanced out by the contribution of students and feedback from peer reviews
carried out by colleagues leading to triangulation (Elliot 1991). Also the
actual positive changes that occur as a direct result of the inquiry will
validate the study. (Williams 2005)
The data was gathered by informal
evaluations at the end of every online session, comments from students during
preparation for using this approach, transcript of the discussions, formal peer
review documentation and facilitator’s reflective diary. The information
gathered was specific to the two issues identified:
- Student Issues : Preparation
Motivation
IT
Skills
Opinion
of medium / comparison with face to face session
- Facilitation Issues : Learning
Content
Facilitation / support
The same
questions were addressed by the peer reviewer.
Discussion
All students have access to the
WebCT at the onset of the module but it was observed that very little use was
made of the facilities within it. The students had varying levels of IT skills
and a few had browsed through the site. Generally it was viewed as a place of
information giving with regards to the module content. There was a clear need
to prepare students to use the WebCT effectively specially in relation to using
the chat room. This was carried out in two stages. Firstly it was discussed in
the first face to face session – students were given an overview of the WebCT
and use of the chat room. The past evaluation of using the chat room was shared
with the group and advantages and disadvantages were discussed. All students
were advised to ‘browse’ the website to familiarise themselves
with this environment. An online tutorial was organized at a convenient time,
to give the students a taste of using this medium as often the technology is
more stressful than the content of the module (Sit et al 2005). This exercise
would allow them to practice their typing skills, understand netiquette as well
as ways of expressing emotions and using the shorthand language common to chat
room. Students were also reassured that typing did not have to be perfect as
long as what was typed could be understood (Williams 2006). This approach to
student preparation matches the administrative phase of McKey’s model where
online socialization is facilitated (Formen et al 2002).
Upon attending an online tutorial the students felt encouraged in using this medium for it would save time and reduce the stress of travel and parking (Collins & Berge 2001, Sit et al 2005). ‘Contrary to my expectations this does work, am secretly rather proud of myself’ (student comment) There was still some hesitance with regard to their ability to use the chat room for a three hour discussion. This can be seen in following comments made by the students – ‘it is odd wondering if the conversation will have moved on before I have sorted out my point’ (student 1), ‘easy to get lost though as I seem to be thinking about answering one question while other things are then going on’ (student 2). Again reassurance was given that the session breaks of fifteen minutes would take place at every hour instead of the traditional single thirty minute coffee break. This was very much in line with the Health and Safety regulations with regard to use of VDU (Healthy and Safety Executive 1992). This approach would also aid in ensuring optimum concentration throughout the session as this was another anxiety identified by the group. It was agreed that the last study day would be held face to face but the rest would be held online.
As with face to face learning, ground rules were formulated during
the first study day and reinforced during the first synchronous online session.
These included showing respect for each other’s opinions, hold a genuine
discussion of the topic at hand to learn in a collaborative manner, ensure
netiquette as well as explain abbreviations in the first instance (Williams
2006). There was a need to ensure punctuality when attending these sessions.
One student found it very hard to ‘join’ in the discussion and complained that
she was finding it difficult to follow the discussion. It was pointed out that
since this was a new medium for all and familiarity of using this method was
only just being established, joining in late in the ‘class’ was increasing
their difficulty in getting to grips with the discussion at hand. This did
little to improve the skill of following multiple conversations that are
generally held in a chat room. The students were given time to socialize at the
start and end of the session (transcripts
show around 10 minutes of time used for socialisation at the
start and end of session) which
is crucial in allowing the development of a learning community for
collaboration and peer support (Lau and Hayward 2000, Banning 2005).
According to Haigh (2004) educators now facilitate learning by creating a climate for learning (Cross 1996) rather than teach and the process essentially remains the same whether it is face to face or online. So the process begins with bringing the learning community together (Havel 1999, Nesbitt 2005) and is crucial to the sharing of knowledge. Since the learners are new to the medium there is a stronger need to structure the discussion, which means adhering to the agreed time management strategy, clearly identifying the focus of each section of the discussion, guiding, providing feedback, questioning and summarising (Salmon 2000, Williams 2005).
‘Well this morning we need to discuss the concept and methods of facilitation. Shall we start the day folks? Since we have done a fair amount of discussion on mentorship and preceptorship we will begin with facilitation. So in the first hour we will discuss the concept of facilitation and skills required to facilitate’ (Tutor setting the scene).
‘So far we have talked about what is facilitation and that it covers a lot of ground in what we do with learners - help, support, build confidence, point out resources, reflect on what happens in the clinical area etc. once again issues regarding creating a good learning environment and motivation have come up in the forefront. Identified that self awareness of who we are and what we do is of importance as it will be reflected in our interaction and interpersonal relationship. Now we need to focus on how we facilitate that is the methods of facilitation and the system we use with each learner for example we can start with the issues of planning as identified by (Student) and work through what all we can do for a learner.’ (Summarisation by tutor and setting scene for the next hour)
‘Are your induction packs evaluated by students? So that they can be improved?’ (Tutor questioning)
‘So we are saying that we need to know the learners needs and work out a contract.... but when it comes to feedback for us.. so that we can improve.. we are hesitant... but learners have to have feedback and we can be critical... not a two way thing is it? (Student) ‘How can this go public? Am not following your thought process.... as if you think it could come out in assignments - there is a strict code of confidentiality.’ (Tutor feedback)
This is very much reflected in Collins and Brege’s (2001)
description as the managerial role of a facilitator. This aspect is also
important as the use of a chat room generates a multilayered discussion since
the individual student does not have to wait their turn. This contributes to
the feeling of community, of being supported and valued (Williams 2005). The
depth and breadth of discussion is enhanced as there are no lost opportunities
to contribute personal experiences and opinions within this multi layered
discussion. The peer reviewer commented that ‘while the interactions in classroom were very similar, the students
had to sit patiently waiting to speak. It was not possible to tell if anyone
was not able to contribute because of face to face interaction preventing more
than one person speaking at the same time. Though sometimes someone was
interrupted mid-flow and did not return to that conversation.’ The
facilitator needs to be not only skilled but also alert to provide individual
attention to the students. This is done via acknowledging contributions and
praise during the discussion.
‘I do general evaluation after
final assessment so students aware that it cannot affect outcome - also put it
in terms of improving experience for future students.’ (Student 1) ‘Agreed’
(student 2) ‘that is useful and also you will get an honest evaluation from
them.’ (Tutor acknowledgement and praise).
Since there is no non-verbal feedback in this medium the student can
feel isolated if this acknowledgement is not provided (Atak 2003, Sit et al 2005).
Similarly since one cannot see the individuals and identify if they are
following the discussion unless they type something it becomes necessary for
the facilitator to gently identify the ‘lurker’ asking if they are following
the discussion.
‘Hello Student 4 trying to
reading fast?’ (Tutor)
Use of humor is necessary as it is within face to face discussion
(Williams 2006). It allows the communication to follow the natural verbal
pattern.
‘So what do you understand by the concept of facilitation’ (Tutor questioning)
‘Ability to keep you hands off and mouth closed when you are itching to interfere, my failing. Need patience and timely guidance’. (Student 1)
‘LOL’ (Student 2)
‘Enabling’. (Student 3)
‘Facilitation - helping others to achieve? I know (Student 1) had some very long words to describe it in the last session!’. (Student 4)
‘Student 1- why do u feel that?’(Tutor)
‘Communication’ (Student 2)
‘Student 2 - Student 1 says mouth shut!’ (Tutor)
‘Non verbal communication’ (Student 2)
‘Good come back Student 2’ (Tutor)
The facilitator also keeps a record of the discussion so that it can be posted on to the discussion board. The notes are reviewed and edited to keep them focused and allows the facilitator to add further comments if necessary. ‘ also some people don't want to facilitate’ (student 3) ‘ should we expect everyone to be and do the same?’ (Student 1) Look back on the notes of earlier sessions we have had this discussion.. nice link to today’s session. (Tutor comments in transcribed notes) This indeed allows the learning to be extended out of the ‘classroom’ as the students value the opportunity to read and reflect on the discussion. ‘Happens more often than one imagined if student’s chat to be believed- why they don't put it in evaluations drives me to distraction though ...I do understand the fear factor’ (Student 4) we picked this strand up later… students fear repercussions on their grade / assessment. (Tutor linking concepts under discussion) This they saw as compensating the fast pace of discussion in the chat room.
Upon evaluation students
identified that they had been prepared appropriately and adequately to use the
new medium. The peer reviewer identified that the preparation of students was
implemented well. Students appreciated the support and reassurance provided at
all times. However they were unsure about the learning taking place as they
felt the pace of discussion was fast. ‘Came
as a surprise but very well explained in the first classroom session. Initial session was exhausting – felt like
“why am I sitting here reading and typing these ridiculous comments” By the end I felt confident I would be able
to manage in the new learning environment, but worried that the speed of
comments and my own ability to type quickly would limit interaction and that 3
hours all at once would be too taxing,
even with regular breaks.’ (Student feedback) However most found the
discussion stimulating and identified the need to be alert as there were ‘lots of ideas and stimuli’. The
facility to find and include resources during and immediately after the
discussion were seen to be powerful motivators particular when they could also
revisit the discussion transcript to clarify issues or review points of
interest. The opposing view was that some preferred ‘to see and touch resources to make speedy judgments’ about them. Most felt that they missed the non-verbal
communication which added riches and depth to the discussion. Notwithstanding,
they all gained confidence in their own learning and in use of IT skills
through out the module. Most felt that they were able to form an online
community of learning easly as they all knew each other but might have been
harder in different circumstances. It was acknowledged that a number of these
issues could be attributed to their own prior experiences of learning as well
as the fact that their work relied crucially on the face to face human
interactions.
The peer reviewer observed that
the chat room situation was not dissimilar to a face to face session. The
discussion in a chat room was facilitated with more control to ensure the
effective use of time. ‘The session was
controlled by the facilitator, signposting, summarizing, questioning, and
clarifying points made. Different elements linked by facilitator as above,
giving good breadth and depth to topics covered and discussion. Review of
transcripts shows ‘formal’ structure. All contributed and valued by feedback’. The
students found the frequent summarisation of discussion very useful with good
facilitation from the tutor. ‘Thought the web-ct summaries were very
useful (are you sure we really said all those things or were you being kind?).
For me a really good level of facilitation.’ (Student feedback) The
flexibility of broadening the
discussion by linking various thought processes was possible just like it was
in a class room discussion but felt that since people were typing it was slow
to refocus on the topic at hand. Again this is the perception of students most
likely based on their prior experience of only class based learning and was not
a point noted by the peer reviewer. Thus again it could be something that will
change with further exposure to the online environment and confidence in their
own skills. Despite the insecurity of using a new medium end of session
evaluations always confirmed that all learning outcomes identified for the day
had been covered in fair depth and breath. The general feeling was that of ‘reserve judgement until after I have
completed my assessment’ almost to say that if they achieved well in the
assessment strategy they would approve of the use of synchronous online
learning.
References
Atack L, 2003, Becoming a web-based learner: registered nurses’ experiences, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44(3), pp. 289–297
Banning M, 2005, Approaches to teaching: Current opinions and related research, Nurse Education Today, 25, 502–508
Collins M and Berge Z, 2001, Facilitating Interaction in Computer Mediated Online Courses, Available at - http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html, Accessed on – 23.7.05
Cormack D F, 2000, The Research Process in Nursing 4th edition, Oxford, Blackwell Scientific
Cross, K D, 1996, An Analysis of the concept Facilitation, Nurse Education Today, 16(5), 350-355
Forman D, Natyanga L and Rich T, 2002, E-Learning and educational diversity, Nurse Education Today, 22, 76±82
Glen S, 2005, E-learning in nursing education: Lessons learnt?, Editorial, Nurse Education Today,25, 415–417
Haigh J, 2004, Information technology in health professional education: why IT matters, Nurse Education Today, 24, 547–552
Havel, I, 1999, The advent of cyberculture: Preliminary notes for the session on changes and chances for the society: Self-organization of the European "Information Society" through communication networks, Vienna Peace Summit, Charles University, Prague
Health and Safety Executive, 1992, Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations, Available at - www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg36.pdf
Kennedy D.M, 2005, Standards for online teaching: lessons from the education, health and IT sectors, Nurse Education Today, 25(1), pp.23 - 30
Lau, F., Hayward, R, 2000, Building a virtual network in a community health research training program. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 7 (4), 361–377.
Nesbitt T, 2005, Communities of Practice for sharing knowledge: An e-learning context, Paper Presentation at 2nd International Conference of Technology, Knowledge and Society, Hyderabad, India.
Salmon, G, 2000, E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page
Sit J.W.H, Chung J.W.Y, Chow M.C.M and Wong T.S.K, 2005, Experiences of online learning: students’ perspectives, Nurse Education Today, 25(2), pp 140 – 147.
Smith, J., 2001, Blended Learning. Executive Update Online (March 2001).
Williams M, 2005, Chat room to classroom : action research on using synchronised discussion to support open learning, Paper Presentation at 2nd International Conference of Technology, Knowledge and Society, Hyderabad, India.
Williams M, 2006, Chat room to classroom : action research on using synchronised discussion to support open learning, Paper accepted in June 06, International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, CG Publishers.
No comments:
Post a Comment