Linear text display tool - MSN Messenger Service

This is free social networking software for instant messaging and can be used for synchronous discussions. The learners will be expected to download and install this software in their computers using an email id.  This could be viewed as cumbersome by learners who are not technology savvy. Once the software is installed then each participant from the group will have to find and add the others into their list of friends. While the messages will come in as they are entered, the individuality of colour and font of text will allow for quick recognition of each participant. Again it would be something each participant has to change in the settings. There is facility to use emoticons, exchange files (audio, video and text), use microphone to make video or audio ‘calls’, use webcam (for one to one discussions) and discussions can be saved by each participant.

 MSN chat window where additional people can be invited to join the chat.

Within WebCT chat up to 12 individuals could be facilitated in participation of a discussion and it is just possible to have these numbers in the MSN. Each participant has to be invited to join the discussion window by the facilitator. Some issues that were a problem within WebCT and Addonchat are solved when using software like MSN. The participants would have to have some guidance in installing and using the software. Considering each participant can save the discussion as a file on their computer, the facilitator does not have to edit and put up notes of the discussion, thus saving time. The facilitator would more or less emulate the role she has in a face to face discussion.

Linear Chat Display tool - Addonchat

 This is a social networking software, that is available at different levels. The most basic is free and limited in what it can do. It can be attached to a website and can be used like instant messaging. The software code can be generated and embedded into the web page that it can be used from. There is no way of changing the individual font and colour of the text. There is a filter for bad language but no emoticons. In the free version there is also no facility of recording discussions which means they will not be available for future revisiting as possible within WebCT.

The professional and enterprise versions of this tool are not free but have the additional freedom to customise the chat area by allowing for change of font and colour of text, adding audio and visual emoticons, forming groups, keeping logs and so on. This software can be considered if the education institution is developing its own virtual learning environment. Facilitator will be expected to set the focus of the discussion at the onset just like in WebCT. The notes of the discussion will be kept in the professional and enterprise version but unless there is another area dedicated to this in the virtual environment it cannot be disseminated easily. The linearity of the text messaging will yet again cause sequential incoherence (Herring 1999).

Addonchat window from the demo on their website 

(http://www.addonchat.com/demo.html)

Linear chat display tool - WebCT Chat

The chat tool is attached to the communication tools page generally. Upon opening the webpage the learner will see a list of rooms displayed. The first four rooms are areas where ‘conversations’ are recorded with the transcript available to the facilitator. The names of the chat rooms can be edited and labelled in a much more appropriate manner. The next room is for the individual course of module but the ‘conversation’ here is not recorded. There is a further room which is common for all the courses on WebCT, allowing students from across the university to communicate. This also is a room where the communication records are not maintained. Both these rooms’ titles cannot be changed.

Learner will click on the name of the room to be visited. This will open up a chat box. On the right hand side will be the list of names of people who are in the chat room at the time. At the bottom there is a space for the individual to type the message. Once the message has been typed, the learner has to press the enter key on the keyboard and the message will get displayed on top in the main box.

To send a web page address press the button marked send URL. This opens up a small box where the URL (web address) is entered and the send button clicked. Should one wish to send a private message or URL to someone click on the person's name from the right hand column and do as before. The learner must remember to unclick the name to return to the main conversation.

The participants cannot change their name from that on the list (generally full name is displayed with the username id). All text is displayed in black with the same font. If the discussion needs to be accessed at a later date the rooms where record is kept have to be used. Even then during the discussion it is not possible to scroll back for more than a few minutes of conversation in the open screen. If the individual gets disconnected from the room, then upon returning, they will only be able to see the discussion from the point of joining the room again. There are no facilities to share files and show emotion via use of emoticons.

Facilitator cannot be identified separately except for the user id next to the name. The facilitator has to set up the focus of the discussion at the start and as with face to face guide the discussion. (Williams 2006) Again since the individual can see the discussion from the point of their entry into it, the focus of discussion might have to be repeated if all are not present at the time of starting the discussion.

In the newer edition of WebCT ‘Vista’ there is a change to help with facilitation but it leads to a more facilitator controlled discussion. The facilitator can enable a tool to ‘raise hands’ as the learners might do in a face to face situation. Once this tool is enabled the facilitator can allow access to each participant in turn to put up their message. If the tool is disabled then the chat box is the same as that in the older edition of the software.

The facilitator can edit and post the notes of discussion from the recorded conversations. This allows the learners to revisit the specific areas of discussion without having to read through the socialising part of the discussion. This editing of notes is time consuming but identified as beneficial by the learners as explained by Williams (2006). I have used this chat option before and have identified the limitations as discussed.

 Chat tool in WebCT Vista

Linear text display tools - the concept

McAllister et al (2004) point out that the text based chat was first developed from the synchronous messaging capability of IRC (Chat). Here the ‘chat’ is seen as communication which is threaded and each message is a response to the previous one. Despite the fact that the communication is textual, it is closest to face to face conversation and so more likely to be ‘engaging, animated and enjoyable’ (McAllister et al 2004, pp 195) when compared to indirect and asynchronous communication. 

This immediacy and mirroring of verbal communication are the strengths of the synchronous text based dialogue (Williams 2006). However, fact that the display of the text is linear and with the delay due to typing time, the reply messages get separated from the antecedent messages with communications from other participants (Garcia and Jacobs1999, McAllister et al 2004, Williams 2006) can be a limitation. This, Herring (1999), calls sequential incoherence which can make it difficult for the learners to follow conversation themes. There is pressure to be the first poster to be as near to the antecedent message as possible. Therefore there is no visual coherence to the arguments of the participants. This is seen within the chat tools provided in the most popular of the learning management systems like Blackboard and WebCT. 

McAllister et al (2004) identify that ‘AcademicTalk’ has adapted the tool to show two viewing panes, where one shows the last messages of any theme of discussion and the second can show the selected theme in its entirety.  This, they say, offers the opportunity of reflective response which is the strength of asynchronous discussion. The tool such as AcademicTalk appears to be very structured as it gives the facilitator guidance of using set openers. This was the tool which formed the basis of InterLoc which will be reviewed in a later blog.

When using text based tools there is a need to prepare the students towards the use of the tool as well as the topic and motivate them to participate in a critical discussion.  During the online discussion the learners are expected to debate, elaborate, explore and construct knowledge. This debating is also identified as argumentation to develop knowledge.  The role of the facilitator in the use of this tool is one of management. (McAllister et al 2004) The facilitator sets the debate with the appropriate question, ensuring the topic is covered broadly, moves the discussion on and eventually consolidates and summarises the discussion. All these activities of the facilitator thus relate to the cognitive, teacher and social presence online.

Synchornous Online Tools - Overview

Based on the understanding that learning occurs through collaborative constructivism and that dialogue is important in the process of learning to give a social context and make personal meaning, the role of the facilitator covers the development of strategies which will encourage dialogue (McAllister et al 2004) between the students and between the students and facilitator. This is, according to McAllister et al (2004, pp 195) ‘in order to suitably ground students’ prior knowledge and cultivate the social, motivational and empathic features that support meaningful and effective interaction.’ As discussed in the earlier blog, these interactions can be synchronous or asynchronous. Synchronous online learning interactions and the tools that facilitate this function need to be examined, in particular the linear text chat tool which is commonly used within virtual learning environments (such as Blackboard and WebCT, IRC chat tools, Addonchat, InterLoc,  MSN and other Messenger tools) and also tools that display the real time communication as graphic and spatial displays (for example Digalo, Belvedere Inquiry Diagram, Compendium, Araucaria).

‘The limitations and affordances of conferencing technologies require adaptations and changes in human behaviour for successful communication to take place’ (Musselbrook et al., 2000).  According to Conole et al (2006) affordances are viewed as accessibility, adaptability, diversity and multimodality of the tool. It also is examined for the extent of communication and collaboration the tool allows as well as the in-built tracking mechanism it has.  All tools are not suitable for all purposes and all methods of learning. This too has to be understood about the tool before using it.  Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools are meant for communicating and collaborating during the learning experience. Yang & Xue (2003) explain that synchronous tools allow for more than one person to access a tool at the same time and any changes made are seen by all parties.

In the later blogs I will give an overview of the tools I have identified here.