Brian Holmes' research blog

Small steps

2011-10-23T16:07:00.000+02:00

I've not posted for a while as I have been focusing my attention on writing my thesis. This takes a lot of concentration and commitment. Moreover, I feel one has to maintain a regular speed in order to keep ideas at the fore of one's mind and to keep,a holistic view. The latter is not easy; for the last two years I've been working on my research, taking one small step at a time. Never really knowing where I might end up, but feeling somehow confident that I was going in the right direction. Now I have to recall the journey and explain why I did what I did when.

So far I have nearly finished one of the main chapters presenting the results and my interpretation. My supervisor has given me her feedback, with some really useful suggestions for change.

I now realise what a major challenge thesis writing is, but I am determined to finish as soon as possible and aim to submit around end of January next year. Guess what I will be doing over christmas!

BERA conference presentation

2011-09-07T19:34:00.001+02:00

I presented my research yesterday at the British Educational Research Association (BERA) annual conference in London - you can find my presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/holmebn/holmes-online-learning-communities-bera. It was a nerve-racking experience, but I survived and the reaction of the audience was positive. Phew.

The questions asked at the end were interesting. Here is what I remember (thanks to Barry and Moira for reminding me) with my answers.

o Were the teachers involved in the Learning Event (LE) participating in their own time or were they released from their teaching?

Most were learning in their own time and trying to applying what they were learning directly in their teaching practice.

o Could I comment on the quick learning we get from, for example, Google compared with the longer term learning suggested by my research?

The teachers had benefitted from being able to apply what they were learning in their everyday teaching practice, talk about it with their peers in the LE and reflect on it. However, this required time, opportunity and commitment from those involved.

o What was the age range of the pupils being taught by these teachers?

The teachers involved were teaching children from primary school level to upper secondary level. We used pupils' age as one of the criteria when splitting the participants up into small groups at the roundtables in the Staff room .

o Did the research show anything about how easy it is for pupils to learn about ICT compared with students in HE?

No, this was not part of my research.

o To what extent was critical discourse dependent on the tutors presence?

The results suggest tutor interventions provoked discussion, reflection and critical thinking. However, there were examples of them taking the initiative and of critical discourse being provoked by the teaching presence of the participants themselves.

o What are the next questions that I am trying to answer?

I have started writing up my thesis and if anything I am going through a process of reducing and distilling what I have, rather than adding to it. So the key thing for me at the moment is to confirm the research questions on which my research is based.

o What gap are you filling through your research?

Most research on online communities seems to focus specifically on one aspect - the cognitive, the social or the teaching aspects, for example. And a lot of research using the Community of Inquiry model is quantitative. My research addresses all three presences in a holistic approach and is mainly qualitative.

In talking about the future, I mentioned the potential to create an eModeration course for teachers on the basis of the LE and what we had learned.

The conference is continuing and I am enjoying listening to other researchers talking about their work, especially were it relates to teachers, their use of ICT and their professional development.

Brian

Being 'competent' in applying Web 2.0 tools in teaching practice

2011-09-03T10:21:00.001+02:00

In analysing the response of the teachers to the final questionnaire after the Learning Event (LE) on web 2.0 tools and collaboration, I realised that I was asking their opinion about whether or not they felt more competent without asking them what they meant by being competent. To remedy this omission, I recently asked those who had answered the questionnaire and had kindly given their email addresses to answer a few additional questions. I had a terrific response with 25 teachers replying.

My first question was 'In your opinion, how would you describe being 'competent' in applying Web 2.0 tools in your teaching practice? I coded the replies, grouping them around several keywords. The following table summarises the responses (note that the answer from a teacher may have several keywords associated with it, but a keyword may be used only once per teacher):

Attribute of competence (keyword)       Occurrences
Knowledge of teaching practice                          20
Knowledge of web 2.0                                        7
Confidence                                                        5
Aptitude and attitude                                          5
Skills                                                                 3
Experience                                                         2
Autonomy                                                          1

So when the teachers talk about feeling competent in the use of web 2.0 tools, these results suggest that they are mainly referring to having the necessary knowledge about the pedagogical use of the tools in their teaching practice. They also think that knowledge of the tools themselves is important, as is feeling confident and having the right aptitude and attitude for their use. Being skilled in the use of the tools, whilst mentioned, seems less important.

I find this result to be interesting as it reflects the focus of the LE on teaching practice rather than the tools, per se; though one could argue that being skilled in the latter is a prerequisite for being good at the former.

In subsequent questions I asked the teachers to say what skills, knowledge, aptitude and attitude are associated with using web 2.0 tools in teaching practice. I linked aptitude and attitude together as I find the difference between the two to be too subtle to warrant separate answers.

The coding of the answers for skills yielded the following keywords:

Skills needed for use of web 2.0          Occurrences
in teaching practice (keyword)
Design, plan, organise and teach                     12
ICT and technical                                           10
Language and communication                          5
Learning, researching, creativity                       5
and innovation
Critical thinking and metacognition                   1

The answers confirm that whereas technical skills in the use of web 2.0 are important, equally important is having the pedagogical skills to use them effectively in one's teaching practice.

The coding of the answers for knowledge yielded the following keywords:

Knowledge needed for use of web 2.0         Occurrences
in teaching practice (keyword)
Teach, collaborate, use tools in practice                 11
Web 2.0 and ICT                                                   9
Languages                                                            2
Own capabilities                                                    1

Here again we see that knowledge of web 2.0 tools and ICT in general is important, but equally (or perhaps more) important is knowledge of how to use them to teach and collaborate.

Finally, the coding of the answers for aptitude and attitude yielded quite a variety of answers as the following keywords show:

Aptitude and attitude needed for use            Occurrences
of web 2.0 in teaching practice (keyword)
Collaborate, cooperate, share, teamwork                  6
Open to change, flexible                                           6
Creative, innovative, desire to improve                      5
Desire to be competent, to learn                               4
Believe in ICT                                                          3
Listen, communicate                                                2
Serious, dedicated, committed, responsible               2
Patient                                                                    2
Help and support pupils                                            2
Leadership                                                              1
Global perspective                                                   1
Safety conscious                                                      1
Culturally sensitive                                                   1
Courageous and self-confident                                  1

There are some overlaps between these keywords and it was not easy to allocate them. Nevertheless, they reflect the importance for the teachers of having the aptitude and attitude to collaborate, share and work with other teachers; to be open to change in their teaching practice; to be creative, innovative and have a desire to continually improve; to have the motivation to continually learn; and to believe in the benefits of using technology.

In their final comments, the teachers reflected on the importance of competence in the wider context of lifelong learning and the forever changing world in which we live. They recognised that it is a never ending challenge to be competent and that it is very time consuming. They mentioned the importance of having institutional support for their professional development and how such Learning Events are invaluable.

Last but not least, the teachers expressed interest in knowing the results of my questions and that is why I am being so open about them here. I hope this analysis will provoke further thought and discussion, and I wish to thank everyone who replied.

I leave you with this final thought, is having competence in something the same as being competent? As one teacher indicated: 'Is nice to have a competence but is more important to be competent'.

Brian.

Professional competence

2011-08-20T12:13:00.000+02:00

My research looks at the influence of online communities on learning and I have been investigating in particular the case of an eTwinning Learning Event for teachers. One of the aspects that I have been investigating is competence development and I have been reading work by Eraut (1994; 1998) to understand better how the meaning of the term has changed over the years.

Eraut suggests there is a difference in perception as to what competence means, depending on the context and who is using the term. He suggests that if a member of the public were to use the term competent to describe someone who had offered a service, it would imply that the quality of what they had received was good and that the statement, used in this context, relates to a high level of performance. He suggests, however, that the scope of the competence is very specific. For example, if we heard that a solicitor is competent in handling divorce cases we would make no assumptions about her ability to handle fraud cases.

On the other hand, if an employer were to describe a member of staff as competent, this would perhaps suggest that they were good at their job, but not necessarily excellent. Eraut cites Pearson:

If we can think of a continuum ranging from just knowing how to do something at the one end to knowing how to do something very well at the other, knowing how to do something competently would fall somewhere along this continuum (Pearson, 1984, p.32, cited in Eraut, 1994, p. 167)

Eraut goes further, 'Where there is need for extra quality or expertise the description 'competent' is tantamount to damning with faint praise' (Eraut, 1994, p.166). So according to the context, competent can have the positive meaning of 'getting the job done' or the negative one of 'adequate but not excellent', he suggests.

For professional development, which is the subject of my research, Eraut explains that competence has two dimensions, scope and quality. A professional's competence will change over time, as they become more specialist in new areas according to the needs of their work. In some cases, they may become proficient or even an expert. Often, however, a professional strives to be simply competent in an area which is necessary for their work, but not core – an example would be becoming competent in the use of ICT without expecting to become an expert in it. Again the level of quality associated with being competent will depend on the context. For example, a school teacher who is competent is likely to be held in high regard as his work involves little supervision and a degree of autonomy.

Eraut takes us through the development of the term competence, from the days of behaviourism when competency-based training (CBT) was in vogue, especially in the US, through to contemporary use for cognitive psychology. With the former, there was a focus on normative behaviour and it was important to have a clear definition of what was expected of the professional. Indeed, CBT was criticised for the tendency to break down the professional role into small, well defined tasks. One example is teacher training, where Eraut describes the mistake that was made of trying to atomise the teaching process into micro activities with autonomous objectives. Thankful, such approaches are now less popular as a more holistic and flexible approach is taken to teaching.

The focus on ability to perform specified tasks to an agreed level of performance reinforced the importance of qualifications as a means of recognising competence. Moreover, for certain skills and professions, the professional associations played a leading role in certifying whether a person was qualified and competent, eg certified account.

Eraut describes the move towards general competence, changing the emphasis from training professionals to do what is required of them, towards educating them to be capable of doing it. Often the latter is associated with personal qualities and hence the trend towards assessment centres and other tools to help with the recruitment of competent staff. Here we see also the link with the EU's definition of eight key competences that need to be taught to all school children (EU, 2004), where competence is referred to as ' a combination of skills, knowledge, aptitudes and attitudes, and to include the disposition to learn in addition to know-how' (2004, p.3).

Cognitive psychology seeks to distinguish competence from performance, according to Eraut. Citing Messick (1984) he explains how performance relates to how someone acts under specific conditions in a particular setting, for example when one undertakes an exam. Here one is subject to a particular environment, the exam room, and may be motivated, stressed, distracted, etc depending on how one feels at that instant in time. Whereas competence refers to what one is able to do under ideal circumstances. In otherwords, competence reflects one's potential. So competence can only be inferred from performance.

Eraut goes onto explain the difference between competence and competency. However, I am still left wondering what the difference is in reality. From what I understand, competence reflects a general capability of a person. Whereas competency reflects specific capabilities in a particular vocational context. At least that is what Eraut argues. The situation becomes less clear when one uses the plural; is the plural of competence competences or competencies? I have seen both used interchangeably, sometimes within the same document.

Returning to my research, in my questionnaire to all participants of the Learning Event, I asked them whether they felt more confident and competent as a result of having followed the session. The answers were generally positive and whereas there seems to be little doubt that competence has developed, what this means in practice is open to interpretation. For I failed to ask the participants how they would define competent – is it a level of quality and performance that reflects a high level of teaching practice, or is it middling someone between not capable and proficient. Perhaps it is not too late to return to the respondents to ask them to clarify their perception and to check it with my own.

Brian
------

Eraut, M. (1994) Developing professional knowledge and competence, Routledge.
Eraut, M. (1998) 'Concepts of competence'. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 12 (2), pp.127-139
EU (2004) Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning, a European Reference Framework Brussels, European Commission. (ONLINE - http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/basicframe.pdf - accessed 13.06.2009)

Know thyself

2011-08-10T19:26:00.000+02:00

A recent paper by Akyol and Garrison (2011) has helped me to understand better the differences between critical thinking and metacognition. Whereas definitions are never black and white, and several authors have offered their views as to what they mean, I have come to the conclusion that I have been using the terms interchangeably and without really understanding the subtle differences.

Put simply, critical thinking is about effective learning. It is about ‘thinking about thinking’ (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.183) and sensemaking; ‘critical thinking is evaluating ideas for their quality, especially judging whether or not they make sense’ (Martinez, 2006, p.697).

Metacognition, on the other hand, is something more. It is about understanding learning in the wider context, about developing strategies for learning and changing direction when learning doesn’t work. ‘Metacognition must, therefore, go beyond simply thinking about thinking and awareness. Inquiry-based metacognition must include self-corrective strategies which make it an essential element of critical thinking and higher learning’ (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.184).

Clearly the two are closely related. In realising the difference between the two, I myself have experienced critical thinking. In deciding that I need to learn more about the topic and change some of my research thinking, I have experienced metacognition. Moreover, Akyol and Garrison’s paper argues that metacognition is not an individual activity, but is achieved in a social context in which one is able to check and adjust one’s interpretations:

‘metacognition is seen to mediate between internal knowledge construction and collaborative learning activities. Discourse is necessary to reveal knowledge, misconceptions and learning strategies. Discourse critically reveals and collaboratively supports the development of metacognitive knowledge and strategies’ (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.185)

So by presenting my thoughts here, in my public blog, and inviting reactions, I am facilitating my own metacognition.

The authors go on to propose a construct for analysing metacognition in an online community that builds upon the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000). This has three dimensions:
° knowledge of cognition – referring to awareness of yourself as a learner, for example knowing what you know and what you don’t know, and knowing under what conditions you learn best
° monitoring of cognition – being aware of thinking and the learning process, and taking responsibility for your learning and that of others
° regulation of cognition – taking action to change the course of learning and achieve meaningful learning

Interestingly, the paper proposes that learners who ask questions of others, who check progress of the group and facilitate collaborative learning are demonstrating monitoring of cognition and regulation of cognition. In other words, metacognition is associated with learners exhibiting teaching presence according to the CoI framework.

So how does this impact my research? Well the scheme that I have used for coding cognition in the online discussion forums was proposed by Garrison et al (2001). It posits that the two upper levels of cognition, integration and resolution, are evidence of critical thinking. I have tended to think of this as metacognition and whereas it is an important element for metacognition, it is not the same. I would need to look further at the messages to look for evidence of a change in learning strategy or for reflection on what the learning means in the wider context. This certainly exists in some cases where critical thinking is in evidence, but not in all. Moreover, Akyol and Garrison’s paper suggests that in looking for metacognition, I should also consider the combination of cognitive presence and teaching presence. In other words, a learner who exhibits critical thinking and is facilitating collaboration and the learning of the group is more likely to be undergoing metacognition.

The question for me now is what is the relationship between critical thinking, metacognition and competence development, as it is the latter that I am trying to demonstrate? But that is perhaps for another day …

Brian
-------

Akyol, Z. & Garrison, D. R. (2011) 'Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry'. The Internet and Higher Education, 14 (3), pp.183-190
Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105
Martinez, M. E. (2006) 'What is metacognition?', Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (9), p.696. (ONLINE - http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/martinez_m/docs/mmartinez_metacognition.pdf - accessed 10.08.2011)

Tell me again what you did?

2011-08-03T15:17:00.000+02:00

A book by Murray (2006) provides some useful guidance on how to start the sometimes painful process of writing one’s final thesis. I found one particular set of questions, original proposed by Brown (1994), to be quite useful for me in trying to express in a concise way what I have done and what I have achieved.

Here goes:

1. Who are the intended readers? (list 3-5 names)

Academic panel and external examiner
Supervisor
Research community
Teachers
eTwinning organisers

2. What did you do? (50 words)

I observed a group of teachers undertaking non-formal learning in an online community. Based upon my analysis, in a re-run of the event, we added a staff room, increased facilitation at key points, provided a period to try out ideas in practice and then held a final reflection.

3. Why did you do it? (50 words)

Applying the Community of Inquiry model (Garrison et al., 2000), I noted that informal social interaction was low and the community did not really develop. The teachers learned about web 2.0 tools but not necessarily how to apply them in their teaching practice.

4. What happened? (50 words)

Working closely with the tutor (action research), we saw the level of interaction increase, the teachers exchanged examples of using tools in their practice and I observed evidence of critical thinking and competence development. Ties developed between teachers, however the community quickly died when the learning activities stopped.

5. What do the results mean in theory? (50 words)

Results suggest that increased teaching presence (facilitation, peer support) and social presence (interaction in staff room) had a positive impact on cognitive presence (meta-cognition). Applying ideas in teaching practice and reflection with peers improved competence development. Social ties were strong but the community was ephemeral.

6. What do the results mean in practice? (50 words)

Teachers need time to try out what they are learning in practice. It is beneficial for learning to have more active facilitation at key points, backing-off as peer support takes over, and a final period of reflection. Learning communities exists for as long as they serve the purpose of learning.

7. What is the key benefit for readers? (25 words)

My research shows what can be done practically to help competence development in online learning. It is only an example and certainly not a panacea.

8. What remains unresolved? (No word limit)

° Are the results specific to the context in which they were analysed, or are some lessons applicable in other, similar situations?
° Where is the appropriate balance for facilitation? In the right situation, as I believe we have shown, increased facilitation can stimulate critical thinking and reflection. However, too much facilitation can stifle creativity and possibly make learners passive.
° Are communities specifically aimed at learning different than those for knowledge sharing or practice (eg Communities of Practice)? Is it the focus on purposeful learning that makes them ephemeral?

Answering these questions in fewer than 50 words was a real challenge, but useful.

Brian
------

Brown, R. (1994) 'Write right first time'. Literati Club, Articles on Writing and Publishing, Special Issue for Authors and Editors, 1995, pp.1-8

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105

Murray, R. (2006) How to Write a Thesis, Open University Press.

The case in question

2011-07-09T17:22:00.000+02:00

It has been a while since I last posted due to travelling and a period of ill health. I feel I need to get back into the habit of writing but its not easy; its rather like having had no exercise for a while, with the muscles complaining when I start jogging again. Its also alarming how much one forgets so quickly. Maybe its my advancing years, but I feel I need to speed up if I am ever going to finish my PhD.

I have been reading about case studies and I've come to the conclusion that they useful for my work. Yin (2009) suggests that case studies are appropriate when you are principally answering how and why questions, rather than than who, what and where; the former being more exploratory in nature. He also suggests that case studies are suitable for examining contemporary events when relevant behaviours cannot be manipulated and the researcher has little or no control. He adds that case studies are usually associated with in-depth investigations of a real-life situation where the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not obvious. Such situations call for multiple methods in order to collect sufficient data and to be able to verify one's analysis through triangulation. This view of case studies concurs with that of Denscombe (2007) who suggests that case studies encourage mixed methods that allow relationships and processes to be analysed, rather than just outcomes. Denscombe adds that case studies are suitable for natural settings which are likely to exist before the research takes place and continue afterwards. Whereas the Learning Events (LEs) that I studied where of fixed durations, they were part of an ongoing programme and my research was looking at only two examples, albeit related.

Both Denscombe and Yin recognise the typical criticism often levelled at case studies, namely that they provide little opportunity for generalisation. Yin notes that critiques claim that they lack rigour, take too long and produce very long unreadable documents. Though he adds that this is usually due to the inexperience of the researcher rather than the approach itself: 'in doing a case study, your goal will be to expand and generalize theories (analytic generalization) and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalizations)' (Yin, 2009, p.15).

VanWynsberghe and Khan suggest that case studies are neither research methods, methodologies or design. Rather they define them as 'transparadigmatic and transdisciplinary heuristic that involves the careful de-lineation of the phenomena for which evidence is being collected (event, concept, program, process, etc.)' (2007, p.2). By transparadigmatic they mean that they may be relevant regardless of one's research paradigm. They use heuristic to mean that case studies encourage a focused, in-depth approach to researching a phenomenon. They go on to suggest seven key features of case studies (p.4):

1) Small N: they address a small sample, with the researcher being careful to clearly define the boundaries of the case

2) Contextual detail: with sufficient information as to give the impression of actually being there

3) Natural settings: where there is little control over the context, 'Case study is uniquely suitable for research in complex settings ... because it advances the concept that complex settings cannot be reduced to single cause and effect relationships'

4) Boundedness: case studies address a clearly defined situation, bounded in space and time

5) Working hypotheses and lessons learned: the researchers uses her/his past experience and skills to generate a working hypothesis that helps to surface the phenomenon as the study progresses

6) Multiple data sources: referring to the work of Yin, they also suggest that case studies encourage the use of mixed methods and triangulation

7) Extendability: 'Case studies can enrich and potentially transform a reader’s understanding of a phenomenon by extending the reader’s experience'

All of this would appear to apply well to my research of the LEs. Moreover, Koshy (2010) suggests that case studies are an appropriate way of writing up and disseminating the results of action research.

I rest my case, at least for now :)

Brian

------

Denscombe, M. (2007) The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects, Open University Press.

Koshy, V. (2010) Action research for improving educational practice, 2nd ed., London, Sage publications Ltd.

VanWynsberghe, R. & Khan, S. (2007) 'Redefining case study'. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6 (2)

Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research: Design and methods, 4th ed, Sage Publications, Inc.

Knowledge of practice

2011-06-05T16:19:00.001+02:00

It is interesting how things can all of a sudden come together. After weeks of coding the messages in the LE forum and generally looking at things at the meta-level, I decided to dig deeper and read again the teachers messages in the final reflection. I am encouraged to do this by the results from the coding which suggest that participants showed evidence of meta-cognition towards the end of the LE, during this session. The graph below is representative; it shows the results of coding for a participant from her/his first to last message, using the four levels proposed for Cognitive Presence in the CoI model (Garrison et al., 2001). The levels Triggering event and Exploration reflect cognition, whereas Integration and Resolution reflect meta-cognition, according to Garrison et al. Messages 25 onwards were during the final reflection, when we increased the teaching presence by asking participants specifically to post their reflections on what they had done in their teaching practice, what they had learned and the consequences for the future.

Reading the contributions I am encouraged by the depth of thought. The following are representative:

Using blogs, my teaching practice became more active and colaborative. Students had time for reflecting and correcting their mistakes, they became more independent and creative. They were motivated and they learn for 'pleasure and for knowing' not just for 'obligation'.

In general, social networking provides new ways to connect and share information and create networks of interest. So, while in more traditional learning environments much of this must be orchestrated and planned by the instructor and organized through the grouping and pairing of students, when using a social networking tool this level of connection can happen immediately.

So social interaction and relationships can be an integral part of learning more than ever and can certainly enrich the learning experience for our students. What is vital to realize however, is that the motivation created by these kinds of networks must be maximized by the instructor to benefit the students in their growth and development as learning community participants. It is important to move students beyond social interaction to the kind of learning communities that are dynamic, rich, and very much reflective of the students who are participating.

Participants' comments, final reflection

Whilst reading through the teachers' comments I have also been looking at a paper by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999). They differentiate the learning that teachers undergo in training institutions, such as universities or teacher training colleges, called knowledge-for-practice, from what they learn in situ by trying out innovations in their teaching practice, called knowledge-in-practice. The first is formal knowledge and theory, including codification of wisdom in practice. The latter results from reflection in practice. Whereas the two are important and are clearly inter-related, the authors also suggest that there is a third type of knowledge that they call knowledge-of-practice, which is 'generated when teachers treat their own classrooms and schools as sites for intentional investigation at the same time that they treat the knowledge and theory produced by others as generative material for interrogation and interpretation' (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999, p.250). I see this as knowledge generated at a meta level, linking formal and informal, work and life, so that teachers see themselves both as learners and teachers in a community of practice with their peers; or as the authors suggest 'working within the contexts of inquiry communities to theorize and construct their work and to connect it to larger social, cultural, and political issues' (1999, p.250).

I see the community that we formed in our LE as engendering knowledge-of-practice, as reflected in the postings of the teachers in the final session. They seemed to be connecting their prior knowledge to what they had personally experienced in the LE as learners and to the consequences for their own teaching practice. They are seeing their role as teachers as being inextricably linked to their role as learners and the need for them to continually develop their own digital competence and online facilitation skills.

This links nicely to the workshop that I am attending here tomorrow in Seville at the JRC-IPTS, where we shall be looking at teacher collaboration and competence development as envisaged in 2025. I see online learning communities of teachers being the norm in the future, with teachers sharing their experience and knowledge with peers across Europe, generating knowledge-of-practice. With this in mind I shall continue to read the final reflections of the teachers in the LE, as I feel they will continue to inspire me.

Brian in Seville.

---

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1999) 'Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities'. Review of Research in Education, 24, pp.249-305

Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23

Non-task sociability of CSCL

2011-05-29T18:18:00.011+02:00

This paper builds upon previous studies that show that non-task related exchanges between students can have a significant impact on students enjoyment of CSCL, on creating a sense of community and learning outcomes (Abedin et al, 2011). And when CSCL is successful, such interactions can form a significant part of the discussion; Dewiyanti et al ( 2007) showed that 33% of interactions in such a CSCL environment were non-task related.

The context for the Abedin et al paper was a part-time postgraduate general management degree course offered by a large Australian university. Average age of the students was 36 years old with an average of 10 years' work experience. Amongst the online forums established for the course was a seminar room where the learning activities took place and a coffee shop to foster informal, social interaction. The latter is similar to the Staff Room that we established in our Learning Event for the same purposes.

They define on-task interactions as including instructional and learning activities, such as group learning, and pedagogical questions and answers. Non-task interactions, on the other hand, are about socialising and are not directly related to course content; eg jokes, compliments and greetings.

They developed a series of items for assessing non-task sociability and consulted researchers in the field to seek their opinion and to revise them. Based upon these, they conducted a quantitative survey of students, firstly in a pilot and then in a main study, asking their opinion and applying factor analysis to the results. They then assessed the relationship of non-task sociability to learning outcomes, which they defined as pedagogical effect, student interest and perceived learning.

The results of their analysis suggest that non-task sociability strongly affects student interest, which in turn leads to a higher willingness to participate in online discussions and to being intellectually challenged. Similarly there was a strong link to pedagogical affect.

It would be interesting for me to analyse the messages in our Staff Room to see to what extent they were task or non-task related. I suspect that, compared with the other forums in the Learning Event, the percentage of non-task was higher and may be one of the reasons why the addition of the Staff Room was perceived as being useful. As Dewiyanti et al indicate a 'CSCL environment with a higher perceived level of nontask sociability increases satisfaction of the course, bonds students together by fostering a sense of community and avoids development of a sense of isolation' (p.10, Dewiyanti et al, 2007).

Brian

Abedin, B., Daneshgar, F. & D'Ambra, J. (2011) 'Do nontask interactions matter? The relationship between nontask sociability of computer supported collaborative learning and learning outcomes', British Journal of Educational Technology, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (ONLINE - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01181.x - accessed 15.05.2011)

Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W. & Broers, N. J. (2007) 'Students' experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments'. Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (1), pp.496-514

Impact of learning communities on teachers' practice and student learning

2011-05-22T11:46:00.013+02:00

I received some useful feedback on the abstract that I submitted to BERA for their annual conference in September in London (http://beraconference.co.uk/) - it was accepted by the way and I shall be presenting in the afternoon of Tuesday 6 September.

One of the reviewers indicated that they missed the benefits of participation for teachers in the online community and that it looked 'like a project designed by and for researchers rather than relevant to teachers'. I guess the good news implicit in the comment is that what I wrote clearly reads like a research paper. The useful thing I need to note, however, is the need to reinforce the benefits of online communities for continuous professional development (CPD) of teachers.

As luck had it, I came across a paper recently that reviewed the impact of professional learning communities (PLCs) on teaching practice and student learning (Vescio et al, 2008). It looks at the results of 11 studies that attempted to correlate participation in PLCs with improved practice and student achievements. They describe the move away from more traditional CPD, which mainly consists of knowledge acquired in training colleges or universities - what they describe as 'Knowledge for practice' (referring to work by Cochran-Smith and Little, 1999), to 'knowledge of practice' acquired by teachers applying ideas in their own classrooms through collaborative inquiry.

The paper cites Newmann et al (1996) in describing PLCs as having five essential characteristics: shared values and norms; clear and consistent focus on student learning; reflective dialogue; sharing teaching practice and a focus on collaboration. When I think about each of these characteristics, I see them as being present in the online learning community (the Learning Event, LE) that we held last year. Indeed, the changes that we put in place, based upon an earlier LE, were to offer the teachers the possibility to try out what they had learned in their own teaching practice, to reflect with their peers on the results and to collaborate in terms of sharing good practice. The focus of the LE was clearly on student learning, the teachers making their motivation to improve their teaching practice and student achievements quite explicit in their discussions. Moreover, as Vescio et al posit, teachers see a clearer connection to their own teaching practice if they experience the opportunities themselves as learners.

Vescio et al's paper is mainly about PLCs within schools, aimed at reforming teaching. Our LE was an online community for teachers from across schools, in different countries. Whereas this may not lead directly to a change in the culture within a school and a reform of teaching practice, it does provide a valuable source of inspiration for pioneering teachers. Indeed, it emerged from my interviews that for some of the teachers this was the only form of cooperation they had with peers; as one teacher remarked 'I have much more contact with my colleagues in eTwinning than with my colleagues at school'. Such a cross school community can be an advantage, as Vescio et al note: 'learning communities also cannot be insular, focused only on making explicit the practical wisdom teachers already possess about teaching' and ' it is important that we seek external perspectives from other constituents (e.g. families, citizens, educators working outside our immediate environment, educational research, sociological research) so that all aspects of our practice be can be interrogated as an integral part of our efforts' (Vescio et al, 2008, p89)

In conclusion, the paper notes that 'participation in learning communities impacts teaching practice as teachers become more student centered' and 'when teachers participate in a learning community, students beneﬁt as well' (p.88). They note that working collaboratively is the process that underpins a learning community, rather than the goal which remains improving student learning.

The paper calls for more research in which the teachers 'develop collaborative relationships with researchers to help document the impact of their efforts' (p.89) and more empirical evidence of the impact of learning communities on teaching practice. My analysis of the results of the LE will hopefully yield some evidence of impact in terms of the improved competence of the teachers involved, changes to their teaching practice and impact on student learning.

Brian

---

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1999) 'Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities'. Review of Research in Education, 24, pp.249-305

Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G., Secada, W. & Marks, H. (1996) Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Vescio, V., Ross, D. & Adams, A. (2008) 'A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning'. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (1), pp.80-91

Coding blues

2011-05-15T20:10:00.000+02:00

Coding discussions in forums can be such a laborious process and I find myself going around in circles. Was that 'thank you Fred' evidence of teaching presence, facilitating discourse, or just a friendly reply to a fellow participant? Was that passing comment about the 'value of blogs for children' an indication of meta-cognition or a subjective statement?

As I traverse the dialogue in a forum I realise that I am seeing only the tip of the iceberg and will never really know what went on behind the scenes, in people heads.

One thing I can say for sure is that tutors, teachers, facilitators of online learning really need to encourage participants to express themselves fully in a forum and not just make passing remarks. Everyone needs a voice in their heads saying 'why do you say that?', 'what makes you come to that conclusion?', 'please explain your thinking!'. Otherwise other participants will never really understand the basis for your assertions and therefore, one could argue, critical thinking will not take place.Moreover, researchers will have a hard time coding the dialogue!

Brian.

Collaborative tools

2011-05-15T13:04:00.000+02:00

I presented to a group a of colleagues at work this week on good practice, tips and hints for managing online collaboration and communities. My desire was to balance the presentation by our IT department on the tools to be used (Ning, Wiki, CIRCABC, etc) with some reflection on the organisational issues.

It was quite a challenge and the preparations took me for than 1.5 days. Why? Because I realised there is so much one can say on the subject that it is very hard to know where to start; especially for an audience with mixed levels of knowledge on the topic.

I decided it was necessary to go back to some of the roots of learning theory, emphasising the move in thinking from behaviourism and instruction, through to cognition and social constructivism. My reasoning being that some colleagues were interpreting the use of social networks as tools for chit-chat and making friends, rather than as tools to support the fundemental process of learning. And as such, where questioning why we are investing resources in them.

The most interesting slide for me to present, and one which raised considerable interest, showed the results of my coding of the Staff Room in our recent eTwinning Learning Event for web 2.0 tools. The graph shows messages posted over time (number per day) for both participants (the teachers) and the tutors (Tiina and I), in relationship to the activities taking place. Without going into too many details at this stage, the results suggest:

° interaction took place when it was needed for the cognitive activities and less so during the three weeks when participants were applying what they had learned in their own teaching practice. In other words, discourse was purposeful
° the level of interaction was significantly influenced by the level of tutor interaction, the former generally following the latter. This was more pronounced at the start of the LE than at the end
° tutor interaction was significant at the start but tailed off towards the end
° the community was ephemeral, being largely dormant during periods of individual practice and dying off quickly after the final reflection activity had finished

The reaction from the colleagues was that they were not surprised with the results. Nevertheless, they served to emphasise that we shouldn't have too great expectations when setting up online communities. Learning in communities is purposeful and participants will quickly move on once they perceive that there is no longer immediate added value in discourse for their learning. I wonder to what extent the same can be said for other types of community - such of Communities of Practice - which are perhaps less focused on individual learning as the primary goal.

Brian

Epilogue

2011-04-25T18:48:00.000+02:00

As an epilogue to my previous posting, I think it is worth sharing the experience that I am having in reading two books in parallel, using two quite different technologies.

The first, by Savin-Baden, arrived by post approximately one week after being ordered from Book Depository in the UK - a wonderful service that offers books on the continent, and elsewhere, at competitive prices and NO POSTAGE. Fantastic! As ever with a new book, I enjoyed sifting through the pages to get a feel for the contents and carried it studiously in my Bench bag until such time as I had a few minutes to read an excerpt.

The second, by Becker, was mine within seconds of my finding it on the web and downloading it to my iPad. To be more precise, selecting it and buying it online from Amazon.com (apparently, Amazon.co.uk has IPR issues with buyers living in Belgium; I say living, as I was in Spain at the time of purchase). Taking my lightweight, slim iPad with me everywhere, I have access to all my academic papers and, more specifically, my newly downloaded book by Becker. The highlighting is not easy but - and here's the delight - my highlighted text is available anywhere online via Amazon and, moreover, having downloaded the Kindle app for PC, I have access to my book on my desktop complete with the highlights that I did on the plane. Moreover it was easy to cut and paste them to my previous posting.

On the other hand, for the paper book, I had to find the relevant page and highlight, and retype in the text (I guess I could have scanned it and used character recognition software, but that would have been too onerous).

So, as you may have guessed, I am convinced about the advantage of an eBook and of having my notes / highlights synchronised across devices. But a word of caution; no reading the iPad during take off and landing, or on the few occasions that the sun actually shines in Brussels and one is lured into the garden by the thought of recharging one's vitamin D. Ah well, you can't have everythin

Brian

Finding one's own voice

2011-04-25T18:24:00.001+02:00

I am reading a couple of books in-between other things and whilst travelling. The first is by Becker (2007) and is to do with how social scientists write or rather how they should write. The second is by Savin-Baden (2008) and concerns the context, time and place in which people learn - what she calls 'learning spaces'.

Both place a lot of emphasis on the need for researchers to write on a regular basis. Savin-Baden highlights how when and where we learn has changed dramatically over the years, as the nature of learning has changed (less information transfer, more applied knowledge in practice; less individualistic, more social) and technology has advanced (social networking; any place and time connectivity) to support boundless learning. She refers to 'liquid learning' and whereas the term sounds rather like new marketing hype, the message behind it is clear - lifelong, lifewide learning unhindered by physical or temporal constraints; moreover, learning that is 'characterised by emancipation, reflexivity and flexibility' (2008, p.26).

Savin-Baden refers to constrained learning spaces ('striated'), such as a traditional lecture theatre or VLE, and contrasts these to more open, flexible spaces ('smooth spaces'):

Students here would be encouraged to contest knowledge and ideas proffered by lecturers and in doing so create their own stance towards knowledge(s). Yet the movement is not towards a given trajectory, instead, there is a sense of displacement of notions of time and place so that the learning space is not defined, but becomes defined by the creator of the space' (Savin-Baden, 2008, p.14).

She also refers to 'writing spaces' and addresses the challenge of a Ph.D. student writing up their thesis (a challenge that I can easily associate with!):

Writing up a thesis is often a large writing challenge and for many this is a space in which they learn to write and develop an academic voice. Yet, as academic tradition goes, the textual voice of a thesis must not be too strident; there must be a sense of humility in the writing, since one is not yet deemed to have 'arrived' (Savin-Baden, 2008, p.37)

In describing writing spaces, she writes refreshingly about the problems that writers often have in getting started. Mistakenly they look to others for the magic formulae for overcoming 'writers' block' as if it were some external agent or force, rather than an individual challenge.

There seems to be an assumption that there are hints and tips about how to go about creating writing spaces or the task of writing itself; short cuts that help to avoid the struggle and pain. Yet this is one of the main challenges of being in a writing space that no one else can create or inhabit. As writing spaces are our own spaces where we also have to deal with our own disjunctions (Savin-Baden, 2008, p.40-41)

Moreover, writing spaces should be places where we adopt our own stance, find our own voice so that we may offer our opinion on what we have read. This, for me, is the real challenge and this is where I turn to the other book by Becker (2007). He too writes about the problems that individuals have in writing; in this case, social scientists. They are characterised, he says, by writing that is too hesitant to take a stance and uses all sorts of convoluted ways of getting to the point. However, he posits that the reason for doing this is the fear of rejection, of criticism by others, of not being perfect. Hence these writers will go to great lengths to emphasise that their writing is a first draft, a work in progress and something that still needs refinement. Furthermore, they may take pride in using a special language that sets them apart as an academic

While I personally find scholarly writing boring and prefer to spend my time reading novels, academic elitism is a part of every graduate student’s socialization. I mean that academic writing is not English but written in a shorthand that only members of the profession can decipher. . . . I think it is a way to. . . maintain group boundaries of elitism. . . . Ideas are supposed to be written in such a fashion that they are difficult for untrained people to understand. This is scholarly writing. And if you want to be a scholar you need to learn to reproduce this way of writing. (Becker, 2007, p.30)

This reflects some of my own experience with academic writing, which is often written in the third person, with convoluted expressions and a propensity to create new words to describe something that has been said before but may be perceived to be old fashioned or unsophisticated. I should add that I see this often in my own institution where departments will use different terms when referring to the same idea in order to mark their territory. As Becker suggest, power and identity seem to play an important role.

Living as an intellectual or academic makes people want to appear smart, in the sense of clever or intelligent, to themselves and others. But not only smart. They also want to appear knowledgeable or worldly or sophisticated or down-home or professional—all sorts of things, many of which they can hint at in the details of their writing (Becker, 2007, p.31)

My reading of the two books continues, however I already feel humbled by having a mirror held up to me.

Brian
-----

Becker, H. S. (2007) Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article, University of Chicago press.

Savin-Baden, M. (2008) Learning spaces: creating opportunities for knowledge creation in academic life, Open Univ Press.

Metacognition

2011-04-10T17:01:00.000+02:00

I've been reading a paper by Akyol and Garrison (2011) on assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Whereas Persico et al (2010) found that an additional code was needed to record metacognition in the critical thinking cycle underlying cognitive presence in the CoI model (Garrison, 1991, Garrison et al, 2001), Akyol and Garrison suggest that it is inherent in the model (see figure). They argue that metacognition is 'intended to provide the knowledge, awareness and strategies to critically assess the learning process' (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.4) and that, in an online community, it is a collaborative process where learners' internal and external processes are constantly being assessed. Moreover, metacognition is not only about reviewing and changing one's own learning, but also that of others. As such, inherent in metacognition is the notion of learners assuming some responsibility for teaching presence.

Practical inquiry reflects an iterative process between the individual and the shared; between 'reflection and discourse, and analysis (insight) and synthesis (understanding)' (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.5-6). As such, learning involves sharing and justifying one's ideas in a group context.

Critical thinking/learning cycle (Garrison, 1991, p.293)

In order to assess metacognition, the authors of the paper propose indicators based upon three dimensions: knowledge of cognition - this is a relatively static state that reflects awareness of self and knowledge about metacognition; monitoring of cognition - the reflective part of learning, where one attempts to consider the bigger picture; and regulation of cognition - when one takes action to control and modify the learning process (Akyol and Garrison, 2011). Their results indicate that most of the messages in the online learning forums that they analysed demonstrated one of the three phases of metacognition, however there was predominantly a move from monitoring metacognition to regulating metacognition over time. As they rightly suggest, this results is perhaps to be expected and reflects a group that is successfully learning collaboratively.

What could be the implications be for my analysis of the learning in the eTwinning LE? Good question! So far I have suggested having a code for metacognition in addition to the four that reflect the stages of critical thinking proposed by Garrison (1991). As this could be construed as being redundant, I may decide instead to have two codes for each of the two stages of critical thinking related to the higher levels , that is integration and resolution, to distinguish between metacognition relating to the general use of web 2.0 tools and metacognition relating to their use in teaching practice. My feeling is that if I code the forums using just the single codes, I shall fail to see this important distinction - my perception, reading the forums, is that the teachers this time took their thinking to this extra level, thinking about the consequences for their teaching practice. And it would be important to show this if I am to illustrate that competence development took place.

Brian
-----

Akyol, Z. & Garrison, D. R. (2011) 'Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry', The Internet and Higher Education, In Press, Accepted Manuscript. (ONLINE - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005 - accessed 24.03.2011)

Garrison, D. R. (1991) 'Critical thinking and adult education: a conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners'. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10 (4), pp.287 - 303

Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23

Persico, D., Pozzi, F. & Sarti, L. (2010) 'Monitoring collaborative activities in computer supported collaborative learning'. Distance Education, 31 (1), pp.5 - 22

Postcard from Budapest

2011-04-03T09:39:00.000+02:00

I'am in Budapest for the annual eTwinning conference, with around 600 teachers, pupils and support staff from across Europe. These conferences are always great events for networking and for meeting pioneering teachers using technology in the classroom, but this year was made rather special by the presence of pupils from schools involved in eTwinning projects.

We had an inspirational presentation from Tim Rylands with an array of free web 2.0 tools that can be used by teachers to inspire children and to encourage them to be creative, to collaborate and to share. His presentation was notable for me on for three points:

inspiration: how good teaching can inspire pupils and this is precisely what I remember from school
standing still: the need for learners to stop every so often, to simply take in what is happening around them and to reflect
getting beyond the 'wow factor': raising the level of pupil's engagement and critical thinking beyond the simple enjoyment that they get from using technology; this again resonates with the work I am doing in my research, although I am mainly focusing on adults (the teachers themselves)

Tiina and I held a workshop entitled eLearning 2.0 in which we combined our thinking on learning online, in communities with peers. Rather than focus on web 2.0 technologies, much to the disappointment perhaps of some participants, we looked at the pedagogical and organisational consequencies for teachers. Tiina presented good practice from her perspective as an expert teacher in this area and I reinforced this with results from the Learning Events held with teachers last year. My contribution was purposefully non-academic and perhaps more direct or prescriptive than one can be in an academic journal. Any way it went very well, according to the feedback we received; so well we did it twice addressing around 80 teachers in total. Phew

My thanks to Tiina for a great collaboration. It is always a pleasure to work with her :)

Brian

Critical friends

2011-03-26T12:05:00.000+01:00

I've just spent a few days at Lancaster University, meeting with my supervisor and with my fellow students. I am struck again by how valuable it was to meet with fellow researchers who are happy to listen to my ideas, critique my approach and offer me useful suggestions. This mutual support was also extremely valuable for reinforcing my confidence that I am on the right path.

It is important now for me to focus my work around my two original research questions:

In a virtual environment for teachers’ continuous professional development:

° How does an online community support the development of teachers’ competence in online collaboration and discourse?

° How do social aspects, such as social presence and social ties, contribute to this collaboration and discourse?

These questions should act as lenses through which I analyse the data that I've collected and write up my results. The end may be still some way off, but I can nevertheless see the light at the end of the tunnel - thanks to the support of my critical friends in Lancaster.

Brian.

Coding an online forum

2011-03-22T12:39:00.006+01:00

I've been applying the Community of Inquiry (CoI) conceptual framework (Garrison et al, 2000) to the online discussion forums of the eTwinning Learning Event (LE), coding the dialogue in an example discussion thread according to cognitive presence (Garrison et al, 2001), teaching presence (Anderson et al, 2001) and social presence (Rouke et al, 1999). Figure 1 below shows an extract (click on the image to see an enlarged view), with the participants names blocked out:

Figure 1. Extract of the example discussion, stored and coded in Atlas.ti

In the example I have used the message as the unit of analysis, coding each with what appears to be the most relevant classification from the three presences. If there is no evidence of a presence in a particular message, then I have coded it as Other. Figure 2 below shows the coding results from the example which contained 11 messages in a single thread:

Figure 2. Summary of the coding for the example discussion

It has been a useful process and I have noted the following from this first trial:

Coding is a very subjective process and the results will depend heavily on my interpretations. This is not made easy by the fact that one only sees the explicit part of the learning process, that is surfaced by the learners and codified in their messages to the forum. I am sure that a lot remains tacit and unexpressed.
Reading Garrison et al's paper again (2001) helped me to see the messages not as individual, unconnected thoughts, but as part of an ongoing process. To be successful at coding you need to see what happens before and afterwards
The cognitive presence model of Garrison et al (2001) is premised on learning involving critical thinking. Nevertheless it reminds me rather of single-loop learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978) and in line with the thinking of Persico et al (2010), in their application of the CoI model, I added an additional code to capture meta-cognition. Meta-cognition is important for competence development.
Social presence is very difficult to assess and intuitively I feel that a message which starts with a 'Hello Carla' or 'Hi everyone' but makes no other reference to people or the group, does not exhibit sufficient social presence to warrant coding.
Teaching presence seems more straightforward, however one needs to be vigilant for mesages reflecting support and encouragement by peers, as these are also valid examples of teaching presence.
Atalas.ti certainly helps with the management of the process. It does not help with the coding, however, which remains an intellectual, time consuming activity.
I chose an example thread to code which is quite long (eleven messages) but yet representative of what we can see in the forums. The results of the coding (Figure 2) suggest that critical thinking took place, as there are three messages reflecting integration and resolution. In addition, two messages suggested metacognition, with the teachers reflecting on what they had learned as a result of the LE. This suggests that the LE did indeed lead to competence development.

So overall a positive first foray into the world of online discussion coding.

Brian

-----

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2), pp.1-17

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105

Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23

Persico, D., Pozzi, F. & Sarti, L. (2010) 'Monitoring collaborative activities in computer supported collaborative learning'. Distance Education, 31 (1), pp.5 - 22

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (1999) 'Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing'. Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2), pp.50-71

Pearls of wisdom

2011-02-15T16:19:00.000+01:00

I've been spending a lot of time of late transcribing the interviews that I held with a few teachers after the Learning Event (LE) last year. It can be quite a laborious task which brings you close to the data but risks creating a feeling of 'I cannot see the wood for the trees'. Today I had the pleasure of writing up a long discussion that I had with a more mature teacher via Skype with a camera. I feel that the quality and depth of the dialogue is a reflection of the stronger feeling of connectedness and intimacy that we had, thanks to being able to see one another.

Several reflections were provoked by the discussion:

It is perhaps harder for more mature teachers to express themselves online and to feel connected with their peers via their writing. As my interviewee said "may be this is a matter of being an older generation, but anyway I find it really funny just writing my ideas all the time and sending them, as if I were a writer instead of a teacher". She mentioned that as a teacher she has spent thirty years of her life talking and therefore moving to writing is not easy for her. She had noticed that it seemed to be more natural for the younger teachers. This can make online collaboration quite a frustrating experience for the more mature teacher, especially if they have little time to spend online.
Despite the lack of time for participation, reading the contributions of others and seeing what they have to share can be very useful (lurking). It can be motivating to see that some teachers have clearly mastered the use of technology with their children and are really adding value to learning "I could get this from the level of the conversation they held". That said, in order to really learn something you need to be applying it: "it is very difficult for me to build-up an ability unless I am using it everyday".
Developing a community is more than just posting messages and replying to people, "I suppose I still can’t feel the web community as a real community"; "Simply reading or writing to someone else doesn’t mean we are in the same room or in the same train of thought, and we are understanding each other in the way that we are supposed to really". On the other hand, the LE did engender a feeling of connectedness and it was interesting to see some teachers still posting messages to the forum once the event was over: "at the end there were messages of people asking for help saying 'what is going to happen now?', 'are we being left on our own?', 'is it finished?' ".
The situation in some countries concerning the availability of internet connected PCs is far from ideal and for my interviewee she explained that there is only one lab in the school, with ten PCs which often have problems maintaining their internet connection. She is able to use the lab for only a few hours per week and this changes both the opportunity for learning with ICT and the way one learns: "They have to plan everything in their books, in their exercise books. We plan everything ahead, we write, we draw, we do everything by hand and then we go to the PC". So what we see in these circumstances is that the children are not using the PC to create and produce ideas in situ, but rather they use it to transpose what they have already produced in advance. So ICT is not transforming learning but transposing it.
Despite the resistance perhaps of colleagues and parents to using PCs and the internet, my interviewee was convinced that ICT could help to bring teachers and pupils closer together: "even ten years ago they (pupils) were much nearer to us, now they are really just going away because they are using different tools as a means of getting to know each other or just playing around".This concurs with the feedback that I have received from other teachers on their experience of using web 2.0 tools: it seemed to increase pupil motivation and the respect they have for their teachers (pupils are impressed with their 'cool' teachers who know about technology).
However, my interviewee reminded me that simply using ICT doesn't improve learning, "being happy with your being very skilled with all the tools that you have learned to use doesn’t mean that you are empowering the way you are teaching children". She reminded me of the fundamental values of teaching and of the need to ensure that we use ICT appropriately to add value. This is why it is important to allow teachers to try out what they are learning in their everyday teaching practice and then to reflect on it with peers.
She reported that she had found the staff room useful as a familiar place to come back to and reorient oneself "I found myself going very often back to the staff room just to be able to understand what was going on, because I thought that was the best way, the best place to try and understand if I was being left behind by my lack of time or whatever"
Finally she suggested that the LE could be improved by embedding activities which demonstrated progress to the participants, in terms of their own skills, and by having occasional synchronous meetings with visual contact for the round-table groups.

Food for thought indeed.

Brian

eLearning 2.0

2011-01-29T11:47:00.001+01:00

A paper by Lim, So and Tan (2010) compares learning online using web 2.0 technologies (what they call eLearning 2.0) with learning before the advent of social media (eLearning 1.0). They remind us that web 2.0 brought with it a paradigm shift in the way users interact with content, moving from consumers to contributors in a 'social and participatory web'.

They suggest that to put eLearning 2.0 into practice we need to understand how tools that are primarily aimed at entertainment can be used for educational purposes. Moreover, the underlying learning philosophy needs to embrace the web 2.0 ethos of participation and community-based social practices. However, this may be at odds with formal learning where the emphasis is often on traditional literacy practices, individual learning and personal performance; what the paper refers to as a cultural contradiction.

We may also face a ‘”digital dissonance” in which neither teachers nor students fully recognize and use the potential of emerging technologies for learning’ (p.206). Indeed, if one is used to learning in a conventional way it may be difficult to change your ‘cultural belief’ that teachers are authoritative sources of knowledge:

To transit from eLearning 1.0 to eLearning 2.0, it requires a shift of learners’ identity to that of a knowledge builder and a shift of teachers’ identity to that of a critical friend or co-learner. In terms of power and control in learning, learners need to embrace empowerment given the space to construct learning, while teachers need to become comfortable with ﬂuidity and uncertainty. (Lim et al, 2010, p.208)

This is hard to achieve if teachers continue to instruct, give lectures and direct discussions. And if instructional designers continue to determine learning paths, focus on individual learning and assess individual performance. ‘Our notion of knowledge and knowing should shift from an epistemology based on possession to an epistemology of practice’ (p.207).

These messages concur with those give by Ryberg (2010) in his presentation at a workshop at Online Educa last year that focused on new ways of assessment, where he emphasised that simply using web 2.0 tools for learning does not imply that the underlying process is following the web 2.0 ethos. One has to move away from knowledge as acquisition to knowledge as participation. Referring to the work of Dohn (2009) he asks the following pertinent questions:

What happens when:

- Internal goals of participation, communication, knowledge construction, and knowledge sharing subsumed under external goal of acquiring the knowledge and competence necessary for their future working life

- Dynamic and distributive views on knowledge and competence enrolled in an individualistic, objectivistic view of knowledge and competence

- Learning as participation understood as a means for realising learning as acquisition
Ryberg (2010, slide13)

Lim et al (2010) go on to present the results of their research on a course concerning the integration of web 2.0 into the curriculum for pre-service teachers and in particular a three week period in which they worked together on a wiki. Their observations show a propensity for the teachers to focus on grammatical edits and changes to the form of the text, rather than ‘knowledge edits’ that reflect critical thinking. In addition, there was a tendency to cooperate in a task-orientated way rather than collaborate to build collectively knowledge. They noticed an absence of higher order discourse that would encourage reflection and critique, and remarked that changing someone else’s text was at times perceived as being rude.

They note that these results concur with other research which suggests that peer-to-peer interaction in online communities mainly focuses on lower-level cognitive tasks than on critical collaborative discourse. They go on to suggest that that the instructor can influence the level of discourse by encouraging learners to use dialogue that questions, critiques, challenges and builds upon the contributions of others.

My experience of the recent eTwinning Learning Event for teachers and the results emerging from my analysis seem to concur with these arguments. Left alone to discuss informally how to carry out activities, the teachers would often take a pragmatic approach in which the first ideas to emerge were adopted by the rest of the group and the focus was on completing the activity. Whereas in forums where initial questions were presented in a manner that encouraged reflection and critique, and where the tutor would participate in the dialogue (if he/she felt it was necessary) the discourse reached a higher level. Here there was evidence of critical thinking with participants building upon the contributions of their colleagues and adding in their own experience. In other words, an appropriate level of teaching presence seemed to act as a catalyst for critical collaborative discourse. And by appropriate I don’t mean instruction or the tutor leading the discussion, but rather preparing an environment that is conducive for collaboration and contributing to the dialogue when it falters or to encourage reflection through questioning; leading learners to autonomy – Boud (1988).

Brian.

Boud, D. (1988) 'Moving Towards Autonomy ', in Boud, D. (Ed.), Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, pp.17-39, London: Kogan Page

Dohn, N. (2009) 'Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education'. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4 (3), pp.343-363

Lim, W.-Y., So, H.-J. & Tan, S.-C. (2010) 'eLearning 2.0 and new literacies: are social practices lagging behind?'. Interactive Learning Environments, 18 (3), pp.203 - 218

Ryberg, T. (2010), 'Social Media Practices and Assessment Irreconcilable Differences or True Romance?', Assessing Learning in a Digital World, Online Educa, Berlin European Commission. (ONLINE - http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/events/2010/online_educa_conference_berlin_2010_en.php - accessed 20.01.2011)

Social presence supports cognitive presence

2011-01-25T18:57:00.001+01:00

Shea and Bidjerano (2009) conducted a survey of more than 2000 higher education students participating in a fully online learning network across 30 different institutions. They wanted to know whether teaching presence and social presence are linked to cognitive presence, as suggested by the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model (Garrison et al., 2000).

Using statistical analysis of the results (factor analysis, Structural Equation Modelling - SEM, and chi-square automatic interaction detection - CHAIAD analysis) they posit that their results show a correlation: ‘As predicted by the CoI model and conﬁrmed by the SEM analysis, both teaching and social presence play a major role in predicting online students’ ratings of cognitive presence.’ (Shea and Bidjerano, 2009, p.549). They argue that 70% of the variance in cognitive presence can be linked to the students’ reports of their instructors’ skills in fostering teaching and social presence, and that the latter (social presence) is dependent on the former (teaching presence).

The authors further posit that the social presence element associated with comfort in online discussion was the most significant item correlating with cognitive presence; low levels of comfort in online discussion were strongly correlated with low levels of cognitive presence. In other words, in order to achieve critical thinking (high cognitive presence) students need to feel comfortable with discussing online. In addition they report that cognitive presence is significantly influenced by the participation of the instructor and by his/her attempts to focus the discussion.

These research results suggest that instructors have a significant effect on the success of an online learning community and the ability of learners to experience epistemic engagement

.. it is crucial to assist learners to gain comfort and conﬁdence in the online discussion format in order to foster cognitive presence. Without this comfort, epistemic engagement in online learning suffers. A sensible approach would be to encourage students to reﬂect on their comfort levels with online discussion. If some students report lower levels of comfort, one strategy would be to promote reﬂection on why they feel this way and how they might overcome this discomfort, at the same time emphasizing that facility with online discussion appears essential to productive learning in this environment.
(Shea and Bidjerano, 2009, p.551)

These results are similar to what I experienced during the Learning Event last year on web 2.0 tools and I wondered to what extent this is reflected in my results: in my final questionnaire is there a similar correlation between social presence and cognitive presence? In one of the survey questions, question 13b, I presented the respondents with a list of five activities and asked them to rate them in order of importance:

13b - Which statements best describe your experience of posting messages?

Number them in order of importance, from 1 to 5 (1 = most important, 5 = least important)

I enjoyed reading the comments of others

I enjoyed posting comments and giving feedback

I enjoyed receiving feedback

I enjoyed asking questions to clarify my understanding

I enjoyed socialising and making friends

It is likely that those who put the last of the five options - socialising and making friends – first (i.e.1/5) in their list of choices felt comfortable with online discussion. Whereas we cannot argue the contrary for those who put it last (5/5), it would be interesting to see the relationship between these answers and cognitive presence.

Cognitive presence is associated with critical thinking (Garrison et al., 2001) and the final reflection that we held at the end of the LE was a specific activity aimed at encouraging the sharing of experience, reflection on practice and increasing understanding. One of the questions in the survey, question 31c, asked respondents whether or not they found the final reflection useful in this respect. The question was posed as a dichotomy of two equally valid responses and the respondent was asked to what extent they agreed with one or the other:

31c - What best describes your experience of the time allowed to apply ideas in your own teaching practice and the final reflection activities in the Learning Event?
Statement E	<...........?.........>	Statement F
I found it not very useful to share my experience with others in the final reflection		I found it really useful to share my experience with others in the final reflection

It is likely that those who chose statement F rather than statement E experienced higher levels of critical thinking. So how do the results of question 31c relate to those of 13b? The graph below illustrates (click on image to make it larger):

The graph shows that the majority of respondents who indicated that they mostly enjoyed socialising found it really useful to share their experience with others in the final reflection. Whereas those that put socialising with others at the bottom of their list of preferences were less certain of the value of the final reflection. These results neither prove nor disprove the arguments put forward by Shea and Bidjerano, but they do correlate with the idea that social presence supports cognitive presence.

In my research I am using my final questionnaire to guide my qualitative analysis and whereas I am not intending to use statistical analysis, I found the paper by Shea and Bidjerano interesting. One area where I would tend to disagree is with the emphasis on the involvement of the instructor. It is true that the instructor or tutor can greatly influence the performance of an online community through their design of the environment and the cognitive activities. However, when it comes to participation in the community, much of what is prescribed by Shea and Bidjerano as being instructor intervention can be achieved equally well by the learners themselves providing the teaching presence by leading a discussion, guiding others and threading the discussion in their contributions.

I finish with a final observation from Shea and Bidjerano:

Additionally, qualitative research that examines the nature of the discourse in online threaded discussions would shed light on the kinds of instructional conversations that lead to social and cognitive presence as well as those that result in lower levels of engagement and learning. It is only through such varied research approaches that we will gain further insight into the ways that online education can benefit from ongoing advances in technology, pedagogy, and the science of learning. (Shea and Bidjerano, 2009, p.552)

Indeed.

Brian

------

Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105

Shea, P. & Bidjerano, T. (2009) 'Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster ‘‘epistemic engagement” and ‘‘cognitive presence” in online education'. Computers & Education, 52, pp.543-553

BERA Annual Conference 2011, 6th – 8th September, Institute of Education, London

2011-01-16T15:48:00.000+01:00

I am thinking of submitting an abstract for the British Educational Research Association (BERA) annual conference in London in September. It looks like a good event to present my work and the process of producing a paper will give me something for which to aim. A short abstract is due by next weekend.

I may also have the opportunity to work with Tiina again for a workshop at the eTwinning conference, scheduled for 31 March - 2 April in Budapest, Hungary. This would be great as the recent Learning Event has given us a rich source of material and experience to call upon when discussing web 2.0 and moderation skills.

Brian

Teachers' expectations

2010-12-24T13:59:00.002+01:00

I've started to analyse the data from the Learning Event (LE), looking firstly at the transcripts of the interviews that I held with some participants before they started. I held 8 interviews over Skype and 43 by email, asking the same questions in all cases. The first question was What are your expectations for this event? and using Atlas.ti, as an experiment, I've coded the replies.

The image above shows a section of a reply to the first question from a participant, submitted by email. On the right you can see the codes that I've applied, which on this occasion are Web 2.0 and tools and Digital skills and competence - you will probably need to click on the image to expand it and read the information . The other codes you can see, for example Channel were added automatically by Atals.ti as I imported the data and represent the headings for each chunk of data - in this case, whether the information was submitted by email or by Skype.

The overall coding results from the 51 participants are as follows:

In other words, there were 25 instances of participants including reference to the use of Web 2.0 and its associated tools in their answers to the question on What are your expectations for this event?. Similarly, 20 people made reference to using these tools in their teaching practice. Some of the codes could possibly be combined, for example Cooperation and collaboration could be joined with eTwinning project, as one is usually done within the context of another. This is easily achieved with the tool.

The results in themselves are not too surprising. They reflect a full range of expectations, with a focus mainly on learning specific web 2.0 tools and gaining experience of using them in their teaching practice. What perhaps will be more interesting is to compare these to results obtained from the final interviews were the same questions were asked.

This experience of using content analysis techniques and Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) was interesting but also raised a number of concerns for me that are to some extent echoed by Enriquez (2009). Analysing dialogue using coding schemes tends to focus your attention on the detail, the individual words, perhaps at the expense of seeing a bigger picture. Indeed, in an attempt to keep one's coding scheme limited, in order to achieve parsimony, one is encouraged to group together different expressions under the same heading. Yet they may hide important different latent meanings that would add depth to the analysis if they were surfaced rather than suppressed. I also note that the very process of coding using a CAQDAS leads you to quantitative data results - for example, in the case above, it is convenient to report that only 20/51 respondents (i.e. ~40%) referred to learning how to use web 2.0 tools in their teaching practice as an explicit expectation, but what does this result actually mean?

Enriquez (2009) raises discontent with the prevailing use of content analysis in online discourse, suggesting that the written word only reflects part of the context for knowledge production. In order to have a fuller picture, one should take into account the external environment for the discussion (the situation of the learner), the internal environment (text in chats is of a different nature to that in forums), the temporal structure (asynchronous is different to synchronous), the purpose of the discussion (topic or project related, for example) and the characteristics of the members of the group (experience of online collaboration, English skills, etc), to mention a few. In order to do this, she proposes the use of genres as an alternative to content analysis. Whereas I find her arguments compelling, I do not fully understand how genres could be applied in practice (she refers us to other papers for examples of application). I would also say that I will be comparing two very similar situations, the LE held earlier this year and the recent one, where several of these variables will be largely stable. I therefore feel that it should indeed be useful to analyse the content, though my recent experimentation has highlighted to me the dangers of getting to bogged down with the coding and the use of a tool which makes simplifications so easy to implement.

Brian.

Enriquez, J. G. (2009) 'Discontent with content analysis of online transcripts'. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17 (2), pp.101 - 113

More than just a Learning Event

2010-12-22T12:48:00.019+01:00

I've been interviewing teachers recently who took part in the Learning Event (LE), via Skype. In particular, those who I interviewed before they started and who managed to complete the event, and were able to contribute to the final reflection.

A few things have struck me from these discussions. Firstly the enthusiasm they portray from their experience. For several of them, this was more than just a LE addressing web 2.0 tools, it was a life changing experience that has opened up new avenues in their teaching practice. I've heard from teachers who used such tools for the first time, but were able to try them out with fellow teachers in their schools and saw a marvellous reaction from their pupils. For them, this is the start of a new adventure which has only just started. It is gratifying to see how happy the teachers are when they are able to provide something new for their pupils, that engages them and increases their personal kudos as teachers.

Secondly it is interesting to see the extent to which their initial expectations were met. Many expressed their original goals in terms of learning about new web 2.0 tools. They learned about these, but more importantly they also learned about how to use them in their teaching practice, they shared concrete examples with their peers and they developed personally in terms of their own competence.

So everything sounds perfect? Well not exactly. The experience from these pioneering few is not necessarily representative of the majority. As I said in my previous post, this transformation only happened (generally) for those that managed to complete the course and invested time and effort in the activities. The others still learned, but perhaps not at quite such a deep level; they learned about the individual tools but not necessarily about how to use them in their teaching practice and the lack of collaboration, of 'learning-by-doing', meant that they didn't develop their own competence to quite the same degree.

So I've also been asking those teachers who didn't complete why they thought this was. Their answers reflect a complex picture of busy teachers with difficult personal schedules meaning that they had insufficient time to be able to invest themselves in the time-consuming collaboration, of teachers so new to online collaboration that they simply felt left behind by the experience (to the extent that the LE could have a negative impact on their motivation), and of some who simply did not expect this type of LE and were expecting to be more autonomous, independent learners, following the LE at their own pace.

I also noted that for some teachers the learning philosophy of reflection-in-practice is not something they have previously experienced. Indeed their own teaching style is more instructional and they in turn expected the tutors/facilitators to be more instrumental in summarising the learning outcomes of the group.

This run of the LE has, I feel, managed to achieve a level of collaboration that was missing or was less evident in the previous run earlier this spring. As such, needs have arisen that we had not anticipated. These included, at a certain point, a need for Tiina and I to raise the issue of netiquette and awareness of what might be considered to be inappropriate behaviour in an online community. On reflection I feel there was a need for the small groups that we had set up (the Round Tables) to openly discuss and agree what they expected from each other in terms of contribution, timing, etc (this may have helped addressed the legitimate concerns raised by Daniela in her comment on the way the groups were established). As it was, the absence of such an agreement led to some groups experiencing frustration - examples from my analysis include:
- some participants contributed whilst other didn't, leading to a sense of inequality or even resentment for the effort invested;
- several natural leaders emerging within a single group who (in retrospect) might have been rather dominant in their approach to setting up blogs, Google docs, etc as places for the group to collaborate;
- perhaps unsympathetic replies (or certainly less supportive messages) to peers who arrived late in the group to find ideas had already been "decided", etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Certainly my feeling is that for every innovation we employ in learning, there are important disadvantages that may emerge. These may be in terms of uncomfortable power shifts within the group, of the different starting levels for the participants (experienced collaborators compared with inexperienced novices) leading to unequal opportunities for growth and feelings of inadequacy, of reinforced teaching presence (such as clearer guidelines) for some leading to the loss of a valuable learning experience for others (who might have learned more through initial failure), etc. So each new innovation leads to a rebalance of the pros and cons, and to the need for us to reconsider our teaching practice. Nothing can be taken for granted.

Food for thought, and there is certainly plenty of fodder for me in the data from this experience!

Brian.

What an experience

2010-12-11T12:53:00.001+01:00

The revised Learning Event (LE) on web 2.0 tools and collaboration finished recently and what an experience it was. We tried out some of the ideas that emerged from the first LE earlier in the year and I participated as a facilitator in the Staff Room and in the final reflection. I was again impressed by the level of enthusiasm and commitment of the teachers involved.

It will take me several months to analyse all the data - and boy is there lots. So what can I say from what I see so far? Well I think we can consider it a success as far as the participants were concerned. The final questionnaire conducted by the European Schoolnet shows 66% indicating that the event was excellent and 30% very good (n=127). There was a terrific response to my final questionaire with 87 replies that is 58% of those that started the event. Here is a summary that I added to my presentation at Online Educa:

I need now to follow this up with more interviews and with an analysis of the discourse in the forums. However, from what I have seen so far, it appears that those teachers who persevered until the end - trying out what they had learned in their own teaching practice and then sharing their experience with their peers in the final reflection - learned not only about the tools but also about how to apply them for teaching and about the consequences for their own professional development. Whereas those that finished after the first 12 days of activity tended to learn only about the tools. If this can be confirmed in my analysis then it will be a significant result as this is precisely what we were aiming to improve.

39% of the teachers who started the LE completed the final activities, that is 59% of those that were still active after the first 12 days. This is a really good result; I was talking to a friend of my who delivers face-to-face training courses for HR professionals in the UK and she remarked that it is always a challenge to convince participants to come back to the course after a period away. Indeed, given that these figures only reflect postings to the forums (contributions), the number actually involved will have been higher as I am sure there will have been some who will have read the postings and benefited from the experience of others without posting themselves (lurkers). Such vicarious learning is surely valuable.

The quantitative results are useful in terms of offering immediate feedback. However, my research is primarily qualitative in nature and so I must now press on with the time consuming task of walking through the interview scripts and forum dialogues, coding and analysing. Onwards we go ...

Brian

Busy, busy, busy

2010-12-10T16:11:00.000+01:00

I realise it has been a while since I posted a message, only I have been so busy and I am only now finding the time.

I've just been visting the campus at Lancaster University and I was struck again by the positive feeling one gets from being there. The intellectual discussions in the bars, the students with their heads in books and the serendipitous meetings with interesting people. I was able to have a very useful meeting with my supervisor Julie-Ann and a discussion with Maria, another tutor on the course. Both chats help me to refocus my thoughts. It was also great to meet John, a fellow student, and to exchange references, ideas and tips. One of the reasons for my visiting the campus was to attend a short course on Atlas.ti. It was really useful as a reminder of what the tool can offer and how to take advantage of its powerful functionality. I am now keen to get on and use the tool to help analyse my data.

I recently gave a presentation at a workshop (PED74) at Online Educa. It was good to give a public airing to my work. There were several teachers in the audience and I saw reassuring knods of approval as I spoke. A very useful and rewarding experience. Incidently, for my fulltime job I participated in a couple of workshops on assessing learning in a digital world (AP18 & AP33). The first involved an insightful discussion on the need for a change in assessment approaches for online learning in a web 2.0 environment. After my opening presentation there was one offered by Thomas Ryberg (presented by me as he was unfortunately stuck in snow in Denmark) and an intervention by Kiran Trehan. Both did an excellent job at highlighting some of the challenges associated with this new way of learning. Thomas explained how learning with web 2.0 implies much more than just a new environment, it means a change in culture to participative, active learning involving such possibilities as contributing to the design of the learning and the definition of the assessment criteria. Kiran reminded us of the expectations of online learning in communities and by referring to some concrete examples from a course run at Lancaster, was able to highlight some of the darker elements asssociated with power, inequality and the ubiquitous search for consenus. The second session introduced some relevant EU funded projects under the Lifelong Learning Programme that are faced with these challenges and are looking at practical ways forward. This was the first time we had brought academics together with practitioners and it really worked. The presentations should appear on our Agency's web site in the near future and I will add link here when they do.

Last but not least, I've been very busy following and facilitation the revised Learning Event with Tiina, but this warrants a seperate posting so I shall stop here for now.

Brian

Coding a Community of Inquiry

2010-11-05T18:34:00.000+01:00

I've been continuing my reading of papers concerning the coding of transcripts in online discussion forums, focusing for the moment on the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison et al, 2000).

In a review of the use of the theoretical framework, Garrison (2007) raises a number of issues that I feel I should take into account when carrying out my coding of the Learning Event (LE):

Social presence is necessary but not sufficient for critical thinking and the successful development of a community in an online environment. 'social presence must move beyond simply establishing socio-emotional presence and personal relationships. Cohesion requires intellectual focus (i.e., open and purposeful communication) and respect.' (2007, p.63). In analysing the social presence, we should look beyond the quantity of interactions to their quality in terms of establishing a climate of open communication, of collaboration and of community cohesion.
It is interesting to see how social communication changes over time as the participants become more confident and comfortable with the community. Hence, I should also code the date of the messages
Some studies have suggested that gender may effect the nature of communication, especially if there is a lack of a balance in the group (as in our LE), so I should also code the gender associated with the messages.
The impact of the instructor/teacher/tutor is emphasised in several studies, so I should be particularly attentive to interventions from the two tutors, to the description of the activities and to the instructions given in the forums. That said, I do not necessarily agree with the emphasis placed on the role of the tutor, but prefer to be more open to the teaching presence being reinforced through the messages of the participants themselves (initiating solutions, guiding their peers, etc)
There is suggestion that critical thinking may be encouraged by the tutor being quite transparent in linking the activities explicitly to the stages of critical thinking. There is even the suggestion that the tutors and the participants should self-code their messages as they post them. Whereas this might serve as an interesting research activity, I feel that it would be focusing the attention of the participants too much on the process that they are following rather than the end goal of learning and trying to achieve a useful, practical outcome. That said, it may be useful to reflect on this for the final activity (Reflection) due in three weeks' time.
The question is raised as to whether the coding scheme should remain at the category level or go down to individual indicators (see the table that I presented in an earlier posting, showing the various categories for the three presences and the possible indicators). I need to do more reading before deciding the level to adopt, however I like the idea of keeping it simple and practicable by remaining at the category level if this is feasible.

Brian
-----

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105

Garrison, D. (2007) 'Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11 (1), pp.61-72

Analysing dialogue in an online forum

2010-11-04T15:29:00.000+01:00

In an earlier posting I looked at coding schemes that could be useful for analysing the dialogue within the online forums of the Learning Event (LE) that I am following. I concluded that the choice of scheme would be both challenging and crucial to my research. I am now looking in more detail at possible schemes, starting with the one that is perhaps the most obvious , given that I am basing my work on the Community of Inquiry model put forward by Garrison et al (2000).

Garrison et al (2000, p.89)

This coding scheme aims to give a balanced view of an online community from the perspective of all three presences; cognitive, social and teaching. There would distinct advantages in my maintaining such an holistic view - we have introduced changes to the LE that could effect all three presences, I wish to keep an open mind about the impact of this action research and '... few studies explore all three presences and, more importantly, interactions among them' according to Swan et al (2008, p.2). I also wish to apply a relatively simple coding scheme as I am on my own and there is a lot of data to analyse. But perhaps more importantly, I am using a qualitative data approach meaning that I am looking out for meaningful examples in the narrative rather than trying to undertake a complete statistical analysis.

Garrison et al's coding scheme provides some examples of the indicators I should be looking for when I analyse the text. In related papers, that I have yet to study, they expand upon this so I should have sufficient guidance on how to apply their scheme effectively and consistently (Rouke et al, 1999; Garrison et al, 2001; Anderson et al, 2001;

Here is an extract of a discussion of the type I shall be analysing in the staff room:

'What do pupils need to learn to be prepared for the 21st century?'

Participant X:

In e-learn magazine I found these skills:

search and 'find' skills for finding the right information when it's needed
critical thinking skills to extract meaning and significance
creative thinking skills to generate new ideas
analytical skills for solving problems and making decisions
networking skills to identify and build relationships with others who are potential sources of knowledge and expertise, within and outside the organization
people skills to build trust and productive relationships that are mutually beneficial for information sharing
reason and argument to extract meaning and significance
the ability to validate data and the underlying assumptions on which information and knowledge is based.

Participant Y:

I agree with it, X, but the problem with my students, at the moment, is : how to make them understand they need to think. It' s hard work. They are bombed and attracted by the surrounding media and in most cases their attention is only given to appearance. I think that our job as educators has become much more essential and aimed at teaching them they are the true and creative protagonists of their knowledge

Tutor Z:

What an interesting thread, now we are really getting down to the interesting part

What is our role as educators in a learning world full of technology? I've heard different views: facilitators ('guide on the side') or orchestrators (taking a more active role, a bit like a conductor leading an orchestra).

Participant Y:

I think as I've already affirmed in another thread that technology helps and facilitates a lot of processes but it's wrong to think it's a solution to the school problems. I have to admit that, as to my experience, in some cases and for some students it means wasting time and having fun. So, in my opinion, our task is that of trying to teach them the positive and negative effects of ICT involving them in projects which help them know better some of the tools they can use for didactic purpose. When aware of the opportunities, they are very skilful and able in producing material and in helping the teachers, too

Participant X:

I think we have to manage both roles: Too much control and you loose knowledge, because the pupils don't get the chance to explore (believe me: They find a lot of tools and information). Too much of the guide role and the students get lost, not having a frame to develop in...

Within this short extract, we find examples of Cognitive presence: information exchange, connecting and applying ideas; Social presence: emotions and self-disclosure, recognition; and Teaching presence: identifying agreement, injecting content from outside of the community, etc (and the latter not just from the tutor). This highlights the richness of the dialogue taking place and the challenge for coding.

Brian
-----

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2), pp.1-17

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105

Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (1999) 'Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing'. Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2), pp.50-71

Swan, K., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Arbaugh, J. (2008) 'Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry', eMentor, 2 (24), p.88. (ONLINE - http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/_xml/wydania/24/543.pdf - accessed 06.03.2010)

So far so good

2010-10-27T14:10:00.000+02:00

Finally held 9 interviews using Skype on Sunday and received 46 contributions by email. A wonderful response and a lot of data to process, so I will not start until the end of the first intensive period of the Learning Event (LE).

The LE itself has started in earnest and the staff room is buzzing with activity. In addition to the usual hellos and welcome messages, I am already seeing evidence of reflection and critical thinking. People are posing questions, replying with possible answers and relating it to their own experience. Wonderful.

My role is to facilitate and act as a catalyst in these forums. It is a delicate balance between stimulating and encouraging with challenging questions/comments, and allowing the community to develop naturally. I am currently following the approach advocated by Salmon (2000) that moderators should be active at the beginning of an activity and gradually step back as the collaboration takes off. But I also have Dillenbourg whispering in my ear that I should be orchestrating learning, rather than simply being a 'guide on the side'. I hope I have the balance right.

My concern is that the flurry of postings in the staff room represents a temporary interest and that as participants settle down to the cognitive activities, they will forget to visit the staff room. As in the physical world, one has to decide how best to use one's time and going for a chat with colleagues is something that sometimes has to come second place to marking homework, etc. I only hope that people see the value of the social contact and of the meta-cognitive discussions, and make an effort to keep this aspect going.

Tiina and I are sharing our thoughts as we go along and I realise that this will be very important data for my subsequent research analysis.

Brian
-----

Dillenbourg, P. (2008) 'Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems'. Distance Education, 29 (2), pp.127 - 140
Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, Kogan Page.

Great expectations

2010-10-24T13:46:00.000+02:00

We have now registered 210 participants from 19 different countries for the Learning Event (LE) that starts tomorrow. Yesterday I contacted by email those who had indicated in the registration process their willingness to be interviewed - in reality I also contacted several who had said No, due to a mix-up with my email lists. Oohps, but they were very supportive in their replies.

I had intended to interview just a few, but as so many replied positively, I have finally arranged for 12 interviews today by Skype or telephone. Plus 45 participants have offered to email me a reply to my questions.

Having started the process, I can see that I get more in-depth answers through a conversation than I do by email. Mainly because with the former I can test my understanding and prompt the person to continue with their thoughts, whereas by email people have a tendency to be brief. On the other hand, the advantage of getting replies by email is that it is already written-up.

Learning English is emerging as a main motivation for participants. This may be a challenge, a catch twenty-two, as one needs to be capable of participating in the discussions in order to share and learn. Indeed, a desire to share and learn from others is also emerging as a common expectation. People seem to recognise the importance of social contact and are looking forward to meeting new friends. On the other hand, few have yet to come to terms with the implications of the community as a whole and how it may evolve.

Several people have expressed concerns about their availability and ability to contribute to the LE, as they have busy schedules. Hopefully as the LE progresses they will see the advantage of asynchronous online collaboration precisely for its flexibility in terms of time and place.

We shall see. It's all very exciting.

Brian
-----

Report on teachers' vision of the future of learning

2010-10-22T17:49:00.000+02:00

An interesting report had just been published on the views of teachers on the future of learning

The Future of Learning: European Teachers’ Visions. Report on a foresight consultation at the 2010 eTwinning Conference, Sevilla, 5-7 February 2010

* Authors: Kirsti Ala-Mutka, Christine Redecker, Yves Punie, Anusca Ferrari, Romina Cachia, Clara Centeno

* EUR Number: Technical Note JRC59775, Publication date: 10/2010

http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=3679

Presentation of research

2010-10-21T13:06:00.000+02:00

On Monday I had the pleasure of presenting my research to a group of teachers and academics, via Skype, at a workshop at Lancaster University. I've not had the feedback from my Supervisor yet, but certainly from my perspective it went well. There were some interesting and relevant questions at the end, which at least suggested that people were listening.

I must say I was somewhat less confident the evening before. Having done I dry run of the presentation, I felt it was too much like an academic paper - rather dry and not terribly engaging. So I reworked it with more of the spoken voice in mind, and it was a lot better. Phew.

There is nothing like having to present your ideas to focus your mind and test your own understanding. I realised as a result of this exercise that I need to be more familiar with, for example, the Community of Inquiry framework - how it is used by others and its main criticisms.

So overall a rewarding experience which has helped me to be well prepared for my presentation at Online Educa in Berlin in December.

Brian
------

The staff room is born

2010-10-17T12:23:00.002+02:00

After months of reflection and preparation, the virtual staff room emerges ready for the start of the Learning Event on 25 October. Tiina and I have been working together to decide how best to integrate this social space into the learning environment and the cognitive activities. I think we have achieved a nice balance between keeping it informal as possible, whilst giving sufficient guidance and explanation that participants will understand what we are trying to achieve and what we expect from them.

The round tables are in place within a discussion forum and registration opens 19 October. Soon afterwards we should have access to information which will allow us to allocate the ~200 teachers for the welcome session.

Exciting times ahead!

Brian
-----

Practical stage

2010-10-03T14:13:00.002+02:00

I am entering a practical stage in my research when it is time to put into action some of the ideas emerging from the previous cycle of my analysis. Together with Tiina, I am preparing for the next Learning Event entitled 'Exploiting Web 2.0 eTwinning and Collaboration', due to run from 25 October - 5 November and and 26 – 27 November (the latter is a final activity for reflection, after teachers have had an opportunity to apply what they have learned in their teaching practice).

The advantage of action research is that you get to see or even try out some of your ideas. This is both engaging and daunting; what if it all goes wrong? Of course it won't - he says positively - after all, there is no right or wrong way of doing things in education and anything we try out will yield useful results for the future. There, I feel better already.

So having set-up the forum for the staff room in the environment for the Learning Event, called the eTwinning Learning Lab, I have today been preparing the 20 tables for the sub-groups. Instead of simply numbering them, which would be rather boring, I've given them names of colours. However, to issues come to mind:

- it's not easy to find twenty-five colour names - luckily the Internet came to the rescue and this site helped

- we face the question What if the teachers don't like the colour of table to which they have been allocated?. Colours represent emotions, so we will have to be prepared for someone expressing a wish to change tables; easy to implement, so no problem as long as such request are few.

Some other good news, I have now submitted by presentation to Online Educa Berlin (session PED 74, Friday 3 December, 14:30- 16:00) for inclusion in the conference CD-ROM. Nice to see this finished. Moreover, I shall chance to practice as I've been invited to present my work to a group of teachers in a workshop at Lancaster University on 18 October via Skype. This will be really useful experience.

Brian.

Consensus, difference and 'multiple communities' in networked learning

2010-09-13T18:36:00.000+02:00

Continuing my exploration of differing views of online learning, I came across a paper by Hodgson and Reynolds (2005) in which they question the propensity for learning communities to focus on harmony and the avoidance of conflict. They posit that many of the protagonists of learning communities emphasise collaboration, the building of trust and shared values, loyalty and the pursuit of common goals at the expense of recognising and valuing differences. As a result, students who hold differing opinions or values are often under pressure to either conform or effectively be ostracised by the community. This may lead some students to under perform (to lurk rather than participate as a dissenting voice), to undergo frustration or to feel marginalised.

In their critique of community, the authors suggest that the pursuit of shared beliefs, desires and goals in adult learning may be a reaction to the rhetoric of individual, autonomous learning (that we saw in the early days of elearning) and the sense of isolation and social fragmentation associated with it. The emphasis on social constructivism and situated learning in the context of culture (Vygotsky, 1978), together with the advent of social technologies supported by the web 2.0, have fuelled interest in the use of social groupings to support learners (learning communities, communities of practice, etc) and pedagogy that embraces group work (collaborative projects, peer learning, etc). This may entail joint responsibility for the design, planning and evaluation of course content and direction, with an emphasis on consensus. The authors question whether 'the concept of community as commonly applied is either realistic of desirable' (Hodgson and Reynolds, 2005, p.16).

In his paper on teaching online, Anderson (2008) emphasises the importance of discourse for effective learning and the value for individuals of occasionally experiencing cognitive dissonance. This concurs with Hodgson and Reynolds' view that the airing of differences is good and should be encouraged rather than suppressed. It also concurs with theories on innovation (OECD, 2008) and knowledge management (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) were variety is recognised as being good for generating need ideas and for ensuring that organisations have the necessary absorptive capacity to respond to change.

In proposing different forms of social groupings for learning, the authors refer to the 'politics of difference' (Young, 1986) and of participation in a pluralism of overlapping communities with differing philosophies, values and social relations. They envisage a situation in which sub-communities contribute to discourse, not just through 'sharing or reconciliation', but through 'talking-back', 'defiant speech', etc (Hodgson and Reynolds, 2005, p.18). They refer to Young's (1986) metaphor of 'city life' as capturing well the ethos of valuing and respecting difference. They reiterate that if pedagogy is to reflect less hierarchical, more participative principles, based on equality and democracy, it should also avoid the 'more coercive characteristics of community' (2005, p.18).

In terms of the virtual staff room that we are about to create for our future eTwinning Learning Event, this paper encourages us to think of several sub-groups in the room, with overlapping and flexible memberships, ultimately determined by the participants themselves according to their interests and values.

I finish with the quotation given from Kolb which I liked:

'Quiet places online are possible, and would be very valuable. But we also need busy yet educational places, and places that encourage deconstructive moves that foreground the process of inhabiting and being online, making this available for critical awareness and revision.' (Kolb, 2000, p.132)

Brian
---

Anderson, T. (2008) 'Teaching in an online learning context', Theory and practice of online learning, 2nd ed, pp.343-365, AU Press

Hodgson, V. & Reynolds, M. (2005) 'Consensus, difference and 'multiple communities' in networked learning'. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (1), pp.11 - 24

Kolb, D. (2000) 'Learning Places: Building Dwelling Thinking Online'. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34, pp.121-133

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York, Oxford University Press, Inc.

OECD (2008) Innovating to learn, learning to innovate, OECD. (ONLINE - http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3343,en_2649_35845581_41656455_1_1_1_37455,00.html - accessed 17.03.2010)

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society, Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA.

Young, I. M. (1986) 'The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference'. Social theory and practice, 12 (1), pp.1-26

Deceit, desire and control

2010-09-10T12:32:00.000+02:00

In her paper on online identities, Bayne (2005) helps us to remember that working online can also have it's drawbacks. It is so easy to be swept away with the current enthusiasm for online learning and communities that it is good to read this type of reminder from time to time about the possible darker side of the internet.

Bayne solicited the opinion of both students and tutors working in an online environment and found quite contrasting views. The students expressed rather negative concerns about their ability to manage successfully their online identity, whereas the tutors were more positive and confident. In addition, the paper shows a clear mismatch between the perceptions of tutors as to their role in online learning compared with the students; the former emphasising power relationships and traditional student–tutor hierarchies, the latter an equalising of power relationships and a flattening of hierarchies.

The students indicated how easy it is to project a false identity online, by giving a false age, lying about one's gender, or simply acting out of character. But far from finding this exciting or powerful, as one might have expected, students discussed their concerns at being able to project an identity with which they felt comfortable. They used words such as danger, deceit, and even 'pervy' to describe what they were at pains to avoid. One student describes how, having created a false character, one can be easily be drawn into believing it, so that the alternative self takes over. Thereby expressing fears of a loss of control and balance.

Another student talked about how they would say things online that they would not necessarily say in a face to face environment, often later regretting it:

"Sometimes in a tutorial you think ‘O, I don’t think that should be said’ ‘cos you’re like, like you’ll get shot down, whereas [online] you just type it in anyway, and press the button, ‘cos it’s not like you’re actually saying it at all, so it’s not you, it’s like you’re just a name, people won’t attach it to, like, who you are." (Bayne, 2005, p.33)

I can certainly empathise with this, having myself sent emails in the past that later, in the cool light of the day, I have regretted. Indeed, I have now developed the habit of preparing replies to contentious or emotional messages but not actually sending them until after a suitable cooling off period; often changing my mind before doing so.

Another student talked about her concerns with loosing control over her identify. She suspects that others don't always perceive her as she would like them to, misinterpreting her intentions. Bayne comments that our identity is socially constructed and, as such, is only partly under our direct control.

All these concerns reflect student anxiety, which is clearly not a positive situation for learning online. As Bayne says nothing about the age of the students or when the research was conducted in her paper (a major weakness) it is difficult to know if this is more of a phenomenon that is less likely to be today. Was the study concerned mainly with students who had to adapt to new technologies and social software (so called digital immigrants)? Would we expert the same result today with students who have grown up with technology as an integral part of their daily lives (digital natives)?

The tutors offered quite a different view to the students, suggesting that they were much more comfortable with managing their identities online and seeing the positive aspects of being able to behave differently (Bayne refers to this as metamorphosis). The tutors talked about the advantage of having time to think and react to student comments, unlike in a face-to-face classroom environment where they are under stress to perform as the all-knowing, powerful teacher. The tutors talked about reinforcing their authority, of establishing the traditional student-tutor relationship and of gaining respect. In contrast the students talked about seeing the tutors differently online, rather as other participants than tutors. One student mentioned that respect for a tutor was not automatic or evident online.

So whereas the students see the dangers of metamorphosing online and perceive a lack of control over their identity, the tutors seem to be happy but acknowledge that they behaviour in a more authoritarian manner. Bayne asks if this is a reflection of the equalising, democratising power of the internet, with the tutors exaggerating their behaviour online in an effort to recreate the face-to-face environment of the classroom, applying traditional pedagogies instead of recognising the transformative nature of the internet.

I must say I was quite surprised by these comments as they do not correlate with the views of tutors and teachers working online that I have heard. Again, may be this study is showing its age. I certainly like to think so.

Brian
----

Bayne, S. (2005) 'The identities of learners and teachers in cyberspace', in Land, R. & Bayne, S. (Eds.), Education in cyberspace, pp.26-41,

Content analysis and coding schemes

2010-09-09T11:39:00.000+02:00

De Wever et al (2006) reviewed fifteen content analysis schemes used to analyse the transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups. Their paper focuses mainly on issues of validity, reliability, unit of analysis, etc and concludes that standards are not yet in place to ensure sufficient quality, coherence and comparability. Although rather technical, it presents a good starting point for my thinking about which coding scheme I could use for the analysis of the data that I shall collect in the next eTwinning Learning Event (LE) on web 2.0 tools.

Content analysis aims to 'reveal information that is not situated at the surface of the transcript' (De Wever et al, 2006, p.7). Transcripts are analysed using a 'research methodology that builds upon procedures to make valid inferences from text' (Anderson et al, 2001 cited in De Wever et al, 2006, p.8). The authors of the paper assert that content analysis should be 'accurate, precise, objective, reliable, replicable and valid' (p.8); that is be free of bias, have sufficient granularity between categories, avoid subjectivity, be coherent in the way it is applied and be repeatable. They emphasise the importance of content analysis schemes being underpinned by an appropriate theoretical basis, but indicate that this is not always the case. They stress the importance of having an appropriate choice for the unit of analysis (the level at which coding is performed). They also place a lot of importance on researchers declaring the level of reliability of their work, for example by have individual researchers had their coding cross-checked and what was the degree of difference between researchers working in a team (termed inter-rater reliability). Sadly, they note, this data is often not provided.

Henri's (1992) work was pioneering and her scheme has been used in many research projects, either directly or as a basis for further developed coding schemes. It is based upon a cognitivist approach to learning, which recognises cooperative learning, collective knowledge and interactivity. As such it addresses both the social interactivity of a group of learners and the cognitive development of individuals. The unit of analysis is the unit of meaning, leaving it up to the researcher to define whether this is a sentence, a paragraph or a whole message. As a well rounded and thoroughly tested scheme, this may well be a good choice for my analysis – leaving sufficient scope for me to ultimately place my focus on the social, cognitive or meta-cognitive elements.

Newman et al's (1995) scheme focuses more on group learning, deep learning and critical thinking. It builds upon Henri's model and Garrison's five stage model for critical thinking. It uses indicators that represent both positive and negative contributions to a measure of critical thinking. The unit of analysis is again the unit of meaning, though only relevant text is coded (this must be difficult to manage, in practice, as it sounds very subjective). A drawback would appear to be the authors' suggestion that some indicators can only be encoded by experts in the domain. Nevertheless, this scheme may be useful if I decide to focus on meta-cognition.

Gunawardena is known for her pioneering work on social presence and the model that she has jointly proposed (Gunawardena et al, 1997) focuses on the social construction of knowledge in computer mediated conferencing. It looks at the phases of a discussion and tries to measure the knowledge constructed. As such, it would appear to be less appropriate for my analysis, unless I decide to change my focus.

The other schemes of interest to me are the three relating to the Community of Inquiry model, which has so far inspired my thinking for the next LE. Rouke et al (1999) propose a model for analysing social presence, in which the unit of analysis is the thematic unit. Garison et al (2001) propose a scheme for analysing cognitive presence, in which the unit of analysis is the entire message. And Anderson et al (2001) propose a scheme for analysing the teaching presence, which looks at the message or sub-messages. Together, these three schemes would link well to the theoretical model of the Community of Inquiry. However, coding would be a challenge with three different schemes being applied in parallel, using different units of analysis. I could decide, for example, to use only two of the schemes – for social presence and cognitive presence – relating to my two fundamental research questions, however this would leave out the important dimension of teaching presence and the influence, in particular, of the moderators - of which I will be one.

This paper has made me realise that the choice of coding scheme is not going to be easy, yet it is fundamental to my research. Clearly I have a lot more reading to do around the subject before I take a decision.

Brian
--

PS: There is a nice table summarising the differences between the fifteen coding schemes, however I've decided not to include this in my posting for copyright reasons.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2), pp.1-17

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M. & Van Keer, H. (2006) 'Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review'. Computers & Education, 46 (1), pp.6-28

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 397–431

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. The Najadan Papers (pp. 117–136). London: Springer-Verlag.

Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3, 56–77.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (1999) 'Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing'. Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2), pp.50-71

eModerating in online problem solving courses

2010-09-07T12:51:00.002+02:00

I came across a short paper by Vlachopoulos and McAleese (2004) in which they describe their research on the use of two extremes of facilitation style for eModerating in an online problem solving context; low or a non-directive style and high or a directive style. Their aim was too see to what extent facilitation styles (teaching presence) influenced student learning.

They analysed the messages posted by the tutors online using the coding scheme proposed by Anderson et al (2001), based on the Community of Inquiry model. Interestingly they also coded the reflection journals of the tutors, using the sentence as the unit of analysis and coding into only one of two codes: either positive attitude or negative attitude. The data was processed with the aid of NVivo.

The results showed a direct correlation between high moderation styles and significant levels of participation from students. More interestingly, perhaps, they also found that students' discourse in forums with a low moderation style tended to be less focused on the subject of the learning – the inference being that the moderators encouraged students to participate and to stay on track. However, the study was unable to demonstrate that this had a positive impact on students' learning.

I found particularly interesting the results pertaining to the moderators, who found it difficult and rather artificial to purposely adopt a low moderation style. The reflective journals showed a significant level of frustration and negative attitude, with tutors concentrating on their own needs rather than those of the students, for example questioning their role as teachers. The authors conclude that a singe style of moderation is not appropriate and that teachers must use the style that they feel is most appropriate for the learning context, the needs of learners and their stage of development in online discourse, with a view to keeping the discussion focused on achieving the learning outcomes. As such, they find Salmon's five stage model for eModeration (Salmon, 2000) to be too prescriptive.

The paper closes by proposing a general definition for eModeration:

' … e-moderation is an activity in which someone, not necessarily the teacher, facilitates a discussion in the virtual environment, making interventions that are designed to encourage the discussants to engage with and achieve an overall aim' (Vlachopoulos and McAleese, 2004, p.405)

Brian.
-------

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2), pp.1-17

Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, Kogan Page.

Vlachopoulos, P. & McAleese, R. (2004), 'E-moderating in on-line problem solving: a new role for teachers?', 4th Hellenic Conference with International Participation, Information and Communication Technologies in Education, Athens University of Athens. (ONLINE - http://www.epyna.gr/show/a399_406.pdf - accessed 15.08.2010)

A comprehensive framework for Action Research in education

2010-09-07T11:33:00.000+02:00

McPherson and Nunes (2004) propose a view of action research (AR) in an educational context that is comprehensive and systemic in approach. They argue that only by taking a holistic view of the context for learning can a researcher hope to arrive at useful conclusions.

The authors argue that AR is particularly appropriate for the researching of online learning, 'an ideal research methodology for the study of educational informatics' (2004, p.10). AR mirrors the learning philosophy of experiential learning and reflective practitioner that is often used and it avoids the situation in which we have 'the mere recording of events and formulation of explanations by an uninvolved researcher, typical of positivism' (p.8). They give a brief overview of AR frameworks, concluding that the seven stage model offered by Cohen et al (2000) is perhaps one of the best for AR in education. However, they then largely dismisses this framework as being 'too generic … its major drawback is failing to provide clear links to the pedagogical, ethical, institutional, policy and even administrative issues that often constrain this type of research' (p.18). Instead they propose their own comprehensive framework that is more systemic in nature.

(McPherson and Nunes, 2004, p.28)

Their evaluation framework is equally comprehensive, covering the achievement of the programme's objectives, the quality of the course material, tutor support, the environment, face-to-face elements and measurement of the achievement of students' expectations.

For someone, like me, embarking on AR on a small scale in a focused project, this framework is rather daunting and frankly would need a team of researchers to implement. The authors explain that their framework is addressed at elearning courses in HE and this may explain the complexity. Does all AR in a learning context need to be so all encompassing?

Can we argue that this framework, devised prior to 2004, does not seem well suited to learning that integrates formal and informal learning, with a lower teaching presence and peer learning in social online communities, taking advantage of social technologies (networked learning)? In particular, the framework assumes that there is instruction, educational content and a curriculum, elements that are less important, perhaps, in a CPD event for teachers in a learning community.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education, Routledge.

McPherson, M. & Nunes, M. (2004) Developing innovation in online learning: An action research framework, Routledge.

Tex

More than 'guide on the side'

2010-09-05T22:12:00.003+02:00

In his analysis of teaching presence - as described in the model of Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) - Anderson emphasises the essential role that teachers play (2008). He criticises the view espoused by some experts that online learning requires teachers to adopt more the role of a facilitator, acting as a 'guide on the side' rather than a 'sage on the stage'. Such a black and white view, he contends, is troublesome: 'The self-directed assumption of andragogy suggests a high degree of independence that is often inappropriate from a support perspective and which also ignores issues of what is worthwhile and or what qualifies as an educational experience' (Garrison, 1998, p.124 cited in Anderson, 2008, p.358).

Anderson believes that teachers have an important role to play in passing on relevant knowledge to learners, motivating them through their own enthusiasm for the topic, and setting an example of the type of scholarly contribution that is expected through their own postings. Consequently he dismisses the suggestion of Salmon (2000) than an e-moderator does need extensive subject expertise, but may be at a similar level of knowledge as the persons they are moderating.

After all the papers I have read on the changing role of teachers online I find this rather refreshing and a timely reminder that a good online teacher is first and foremost a good teacher. This fits more with my own experience from school where I found the best teachers to be the ones that inspired me and gave me a yearning to learn more. And of my experience as an OU tutor where my own experience and stories seemed to be of value to the students.

Anderson differentiates between online discourse and online discussion; the former reflects the participants' ability to express their views and present their arguments through critical thinking, whereas the latter may simply be social intercourse. I find this distinction really useful when considering the argument put forward by Anderson that teachers need to know more than the students and the yet situations may arise in which the students are more knowledgeable and confident with communicating online than are the teachers. The teachers may indeed be concerned about their ability to use the technology effectively, however when it comes to discourse, their maturity, knowledge and experience is likely to be more important than the advanced ICT skills of their students. Raising the level of student discussion from simply making observations and agreeing with each other, to critiquing and building upon what others say is an important role of the e-teacher and an essential ingredient of teaching presence.

An aspect that Anderson highlights as being important for critical thinking and intellectual growth is cognitive dissonance:

'Discourse also helps students to uncover misconceptions in their own thinking, or disagreements with the teacher or other students. Such conflict provides opportunity for exposure to cognitive dissonance which, from a “Piagetian” perspective, is critical to intellectual growth.' (Anderson, 2008, p.35)

An important role of the teacher would therefore be to encourage the airing of differences of opinions and debates about topics, with a view to helping students to cope with cognitive dissonance as a fact of life and as something that enriches discourse. This fits nicely with the views expressed by Hodgson and Reynolds (2005), that learning communities should support and facilitate differences of opinion, rather than 'manage' or suppress them.

Anderson talks about the need for assessment of online learning to reflect the underlying learning philosophy. Learning that encourages active participation and knowledge sharing should also give students a say in the way they are assessed. Furthermore, he states that research shows that in order to have an active online learning community you need to have an assessment/certification process that assesses and rewards participation. He gives the example of two practical frameworks used by teachers to be open and transparent about their expectations for contributions and the criteria by which they will be assessed. I find these frameworks to be rather prescriptive, for example indicating that postings should be between one and three paragraphs, should not appear too concentrated in time and should be grammatically and syntactically correct. Anderson does concede that some teachers may feel uneasy with such a prescriptive approach, but warns that alternative approaches based upon subjective assessments can leave students feeling unhappy. An approach increasingly being used involves asking learners to reflect on their own performance and to assess themselves in a final posting.

What does this imply for the forthcoming Learning event on web 2.0 tools in which we shall be asking teachers to reflect on what they have learnt in an informal staff room? Is it realistic to expect busy teachers to undertake this additional activity without some form of incentive? Should the final certification some how reflect this participation?

Brian.

Anderson, T. (2008) 'Teaching in an online learning context', Theory and practice of online learning, 2nd ed, pp.343-365, AU Press
Garrison, D. R. (1998). Andragogy, learner-centeredness, and the educational transaction at a distance. Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), pp. 123-127.
Hodgson, V. & Reynolds, M. (2005) 'Consensus, difference and 'multiple communities' in networked learning'. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (1), pp.11 - 24
Salmon, G. (2001) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, Kogan Page.

Action Research

2010-08-21T17:13:00.000+02:00

I've been thinking further about my possible involvement in the next Learning Event (LE) for web 2.0 as a moderator and my concerns about how this would effect the validity of my research, and in particular the comments from Laura in response to my posting - many thanks Laura for your valuable input. I went back to my notes on Action Research and realised that this is precisely what I have been practising so far and that my participation in the future activity, as a researcher, is not only allowed, it is actually required as an integral part of the methodology.

Action Research involves researchers working together with practitioners to use the results to implement change. Rather then having external 'experts' observing the practice of 'subjects', often associated with a scientific of positivist approach, the two collaborate together as equals in process of change (Cohen et al, 2000). Action research is often used in local projects of a social nature, for example for research involving teaching practice and professional development (Denscombe, 2007). The advantage of Action Research is that you get an insiders view, that is holistic and covers the whole social context rather than the view of a detached outsider. However, it is only Action Research if is is collaborative, often through 'self-critical communities of people participating and collaborating in all phases of the research process' (Cohen et al, 2000, p.300). But does this imply that all 200 teachers in the LE need to have a say in how we design and carry out the event? Luckily Cohen et al also state that 'The view of action research as solely a group activity, however, might be too restricting' (p.301) and they indicate that it can involve a small group or even a single teacher in a 'teacher-researcher-teacher' movement.

I have been working closely with the domain expert for the event, Tiina, and our collective thinking has led to a proposal for the next LE that, I believe, benefits from our collaboration and offers something with which we both can feel comfortable. Involving the teachers themselves during the event in an ongoing reflection and discourse on what they think of the LE is also compatible with an Action Research based approach. Furthermore, the researcher may have a legitimate role as facilitator in the process, as a 'guide, formulator and summariser of knowledge, raiser of issues' (Cohen et al, 2000, p.301), 'a resource to be drawn upon as and when the practitioner sees fit' (Denscombe, 2007, p.127).

There are some drawbacks of this approach and the researcher needs to go to great pains to avoid biasing the research - this involves reflexivity, when the researcher has to be open about her/his own feelings and ensures that the overall project remains democratic, with symmetry of power and respect for each other as equals.

Action Research usually involves cycles or spirals of plan, act, observe, reflect, with several iterations of experimentation. In practice, this is often limited and in my case I will have gone through two iterations, using the first LE to observe, analyse and propose changes and the second LE to try out the ideas.

From my reading of Action Research I've picked up some useful ideas. I must keep a diary of what happens and I should continue to be open about what I am thinking (through this blog perhaps). I would like to encourage Tiina to keep her own diary and to be my critical friend throughout the process. Instead of keeping the research aims in the background, we should be open about what we are doing and why we are doing it, seeking the opinion of the participants as an ongoing process of reflection. This could be usefully done within the staff room. I suggest collect data from as many sources as I can practicably manage, always ensuring informed consent from the participants and the right to with draw from the research.

If all goes well, I should have enough data to analyse what happened and to write a case study - the typical output of Action Research (Gray, 2004). Whether the results will be generalisable or too context specific is debatable (Cohen et al, 2000), however it will be a useful research exercise that should contribute to understanding more about learning communities.

Brian.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education, Routledge.
Denscombe, M. (2007) The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects, Open University Press.
Gray, D. E. (2004) Doing research in the real world, London, SAGE Publications Ltd.

Understanding teachers' Continous Professional Development (CPD)

2010-08-15T14:28:00.001+02:00

I've read a couple of papers recently that are helping me to understand better CPD for teachers and why eTwinning may be so successful.

Guskey (2002) suggests that research points to most CPD as being ineffective in bringing about the desired fundamental change in teachers' beliefs, attitudes and practice. He points out that what primarily motivates teachers to learn is a desire to improve the learning outcome of their students. Adding that they are also very pragmatic, seeking specific, concrete and practical ideas. Programmes that do not take this into account are doomed to failure. He suggests that the underlying model that is often used with teachers' CPD is flawed: based on the ideas of Lewin (1935) it presupposes that in order to change teaching practice we must firstly address teachers' beliefs and attitudes in order to obtain their commitment and enthusiasm to subsequently implement new programmes. Guskey proposes an alternative model based upon the premise that one has to firstly demonstrate the practical and concrete benefits of innovation, and the positive impact on students' learning outcomes:

'The crucial point is that it is not the professional development per se, but the experience of successful implementation that changes teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. They believe it works because they have seen it work, and that experience shapes their attitudes and beliefs' (Guskey, 2002, p.383)

Guskey (p.383, 2002)

Boyle et al (2004) also suggest that whereas traditional CPD approaches, such as attending a course, a conference, etc, may spark the interest of teachers, they are largely insufficient to lead to sustainable change to what teachers teach and how they teach. They note that for a lot of teachers, 'professional development appears to be still characterized by fragmented ‘one-shot’ workshops at which they listen passively to ‘experts’ and learn about topics not essential to teaching' (2004, p47). They suggest that CPD that favours peer learning is far more likely to be successful:

'In comparison to the traditional ‘one-hit’ workshops, these types of activities are usually longer in duration, allow teachers the opportunity to practise and reflect upon their teaching and are embedded in ongoing teaching activities' (Boyle et al, 2004, p.48)

The findings from their longitudinal study suggest that the most common longer-term CPD activities for teachers involved the observation of colleagues (peers) and the sharing of practice, and that these activities led to one or more aspects of teaching practice being modified.

The conclusions of Guskey and Boyle et al fit well with the approach adopted in eTwinning, where the basic premise is that teachers primarily learn from each other, through concrete activities (often joint pedagogical projects) in an environment that supports longer-term collaboration and relationship building. The conclusions also support the ideas that we are putting forward for the revised LE in the autumn, namely: more support for peer reflection and sharing, and a longer period in which teachers may try-out the ideas in their daily practice.

Brian
-----

Boyle, B., While, D. & Boyle, T. (2004) 'A longitudinal study of teacher change: what makes professional development effective?'. Curriculum Journal, 15 (1), pp.45-68
Guskey, T. R. (2002) 'Professional Development and Teacher Change'. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8 (3), pp.381 - 391
Lewin, K. (1935) 'A Dynamic Theory of Personality', New York, McGraw Hill

Applying ideas emerging from research

2010-08-14T15:20:00.000+02:00

The online learning event (LE) for teachers that I followed in April is being repeated in October/November and this is an opportunity for me to apply some of the ideas emerging from my research. Working with the teacher and domain expert, Tiina, who runs the event, I've been exploring what changes we could apply. It's quite an opportunity but at the same time quite a challenge. These were the ideas that emerged from the previous event:

The cognitive activities of the event could be usefully reinforced by social activities to foster the development of a community and provide opportunity for shared reflection on the process of collaboration, thereby supporting competence development
The event could be lengthened to give more time for teachers to apply ideas in their own practice, reflect on their experience and share stories. This will also give more opportunity for social ties to strengthen and the community to develop
The teaching presence could be reinforced at some key points, to provide more structure/guidance and launch the participants on the process of collaboration and reflection

And in response, this is what we are thinking of doing for the new event:

Create a virtual staff room where teachers can socialise informally, reflect on their experiences and share their thoughts with their peers. The aim is to support reflection in practice, meta-cognition and higher-order learning.
After the LE cognitive activities have finished, allow a further period of (say) one month for teachers to try out what they have learned through the LE in their own teaching practice and then reconvene them for a debrief. They will be encouraged to their share stories, think about what they have learned and reflect on what it means for their own competence development.
During the one month of practising, leave the LE virtual staff room open to support ongoing reflection and the development of a peer community
Reinforce the moderation (teaching presence) at key points, for example during the final activity, to encourage reflection and stimulate discussion

I would again collect data, having obtained the permissions of the participants, and analyse it to see what lessons can be learned. However, I shall also be actively involved as a moderator (supporting Tiina) and therein lies a fundamental question with which I am currently battling: is it a valid research proposition to be both actively involved in this exercise as a participant and as a researcher? How can I ensure that my results are not influenced or biased, and hence my research conclusions rejected?

Answers on a postcard please :)

Food for further reflection, that's for sure.

What learning tasks lead to collaboration

2010-07-25T16:00:00.002+02:00

In their paper entitled 'CSCL in teacher training: what learning tasks lead to collaboration', Lockhorst et al (2010) examine the challenging question as to which activities encourage teachers to collaborate online, as opposed to learning on their own. They also try to relate the nature of the task to the depth of learning that occurs.

Referring to the research literature, they remind us that several studies have shown that teachers working together often fail to collaborate and that 'collegiality alone seems not enough for teacher collaboration and collaborative skills are needed such as the ability of collegial enquiry and reflection' (p.63). Teachers have strong professional beliefs that can lead to conflict and teachers need to learn how to use their collaborative skills to take advantage of their differences to stimulate debate. In this respect I am reminded of some wise words used by our former European Commissioner for education, Jan Figel' "Divers systems, shared goals" - valuing and embracing diversity (EU, 2008).

Lockhorst et al also remind us of the dilemma as to how much structure and guidance should be present in online learning activities - what I referred to as teaching presence in previous postings (Garrison, 2007). Unstructured, ill-defined tasks are known to stimulate collaboration and encourage negotiation between learners. This in turn stimulates critical reflection and deeper-learning. On the other hand, research also shows that ill-structured problems can lead to participants working in a disorganised manner, spending more time on trying to understand the problem than on solving it. This can lead some learners to feel disorientated, demotivated and even disaffected, especially if they are not familiar with Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL).

Having researched three initial teacher training programmes at the University of Utrecht, using a mix of quantitative and qualitative analysis, they arrive at several tentative conclusions:

Tasks designed to yield a group product without individual interest of the participants lead to less participation compared with tasks requiring reflection on one's own practice. However, this might be compensated for by having more structure in the learning tasks (i.e. increased teaching presence may encourage collaboration in activities that are less related to individual practice).
Similarly tasks calling for more reflection and peer feedback lead to greater interaction between participants (not too surprisingly). Interaction can be encouraged through the use of 'more complex tasks with prescribed roles and directions addressing controversial positions of group members' (p.75).
In order for communication between participants to be focused on the content (rather than organisational issues, for example) the activity should be as straightforward as possible. They suggest that participants more experienced in CSCL may require less structure.
Personal perspectives, reflections and experiences trigger a deeper level of learning. Relating learning to teachers' own practice leads to greater engagement and motivation.

They conclude by suggesting that:

... even the most complex CSCL task in our study ... needed a certain level of structure (cf. Dillenbourg, 2002; Sorensen & Takle, 1999) to show a high level of student participation and interaction, a high proportion of content- related communication, a deep level of communication and a high level of organisational communication. (Lockhorst et al, 2010, p.76)

So on balance they lean towards more structured activities (a greater teaching presence) in online learning communities, apart from when the participants are already well versed in this type of environment and are able to quickly address organisational issues in order to focus on the problem in hand.

Finally, it was interesting to read that they had used Atlas.ti extensively in their analysis of the data and to see another example of a data coding scheme.

Brian
-----

EU (2008) Education and Training 2010 – Diverse Systems, Shared Goals, The European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. (ONLINE - http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.html - accessed 30.05.2008)

Garrison, D. (2007) 'Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues'. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11 (1), pp.61-72

Lockhorst, D., Admiraal, W. & Pilot, A. (2010) 'CSCL in teacher training: what learning tasks lead to collaboration?'. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19 (1), pp.63-78

Online communities for teachers' professional development

2010-07-24T20:29:00.003+02:00

Duncan-Howell's paper (2010) examines three online communities involving teachers to see to what extent they are facilitating professional development (two in Australia and one in the UK). She concludes, from an online survey completed by the participants, that indeed such communities offer a rich source of professional learning, that teachers consequently spend more time in professional learning and the outcomes are satisfying for the participants. Whereas the data obtained is from the participants themselves and is not backed up (triangulated) by other independent sources, the results are interesting and some aspects concur with my own reflections - notably on the short-duration teachers online community (learning event) that I followed.

She compares the results with more traditional teacher professional development (PD) where the research literature suggests that there has been less success - harder for teachers to follow in terms of timing, courses tend to be prescribed by school management rather than designed to reflect teachers' needs, workshops tend to be too short and there is insufficient opportunity for collaboration (e.g. Guskey, 2002). Research suggests that skills taught in traditional PD are not being taken up in the classroom; there is too much focus on theory, and teaching practice is not changing as a result. Overall there is a perceived lack of relevance. Online communities, on the overhand, tend to be more teacher driven and more clearly linked to practice. This motivates the teachers to continue their participation, sometimes for periods spanning several years.

Referring to the likes of Boyle et al (2004) she suggests that the collaborative nature of online communities helps teachers to be less insular and more receptive to sharing practice with their peers. In particular, referring to the literature, she suggests that one of the secrets to the success of online communities is their longevity, the way in which they afford critical reflection in practice and the social space that they provide . This concurs with one of the tentative conclusions I reached in my research on the 12 day learning event (LE) that was focused on developing skills in the use of web 2.0 tools: a longer period is needed to engender a community and support critical reflection, backed by a social space in which the cognitive activities can be complemented by social ones. That said, the LE I followed involved more formal learning, PD being the clear stated intention of the LE. Online communities, on the other hand, are often not specifically focused on learning - though it is a clear consequence. Another result from the survey that concurred with my own analysis was the importance of the emotional support offered by the teachers to each other and the 'sense of belonging and camaraderie' (Duncan-Howell, 2010, p.336). I linked this in my analysis to issues of social presence and the relatively strong ties that developed between participants.

In speaking about communities, Duncan-Howell refers to a definition offered by Leask and Younie (2001):

Online communities (for professional development) may be using any form of electronic communication which provides for the opportunity for on-line synchronous/asynchronous two-way communication between an individual and their peers, and to which the individual has some commitment and professional involvement over a period of time.
(Leask & Younie, 2001, p. 225)

In her analysis, Duncan-Howell noted that whereas the teachers surveyed indicated a clear preference for face-to-face environments for learning, they also confirmed that online communities provide a good environment for PD. She concludes that perhaps it was a question of terminology and that teachers do not instantly associate PD with learning. I encountered a similar issue in my survey, where I felt that the use of the terms training and professional development led the respondents to focus their feedback on the cognitive rather than the social activities, the latter being (perhaps) perceived as time-wasting or not what one is supposed to do when involved in PD.

Brian
-----

Boyle, B., While, D. & Boyle, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of teacher change: what makes professional development effective? The Curriculum Journal, 15, 1, 45–68.

Duncan-Howell, J (2010). 'Teachers making connections: Online communities as a source of professional learning'. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41 (2), pp.324-340

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8, 3/4, 381–391.

Leask, M. & Younie, S. (2001). Building on-line communities for teachers: issues emerging from research. In M. Leask (Ed.), Issues in teaching using ICT (pp. 223–232). London: Routledge Falmer.

Discourse analysis in a CoP

2010-07-18T16:59:00.000+02:00

It was interesting to read in Thomson et al.'s paper (2009) how they had applied discourse analysis to a short term (seven weeks long) online community of practice, based upon the Interaction Analysis model of Gunawardena et al (1997). The workshop involved 20-40 participants, 3 facilitators, 4 mentors, 3 guest speakers and 3-4 researchers - a significant investment in support staff, even excluding the researchers (cf the 200 participants and 1 domain expert involved in the eTwinning Learning Event [LE] that I followed).

Main points that I noted from the paper:

Anecdotal evidence emerged of strong ties forming even in such a short term CoP. This matches my observations from the LE
Several discourse analysis models were examined and Gunawardena et al's model was chosen. That said, results showed that the model 'used alone, would not capture the full measure of messages posted' and the open ended and free-form dialogue observed in the CoP 'is less readily analysed by frameworks based upon goal orientated debate style interactions' (p.7).
Using several researchers to code data can lead to discrepancies in the way the data is coded, so called 'inter-rater reliability'. I won't have this problem!
The study of the dialogue in the forums misses the private chats and discussions that take place outside of the environment, yet the results show that such discussions are often referred to in the dialogue by the participants
The level of interaction by the participants gradually increased from the lower range, identified by Gunawardena et al, to the medium to high range. Yet the workshop leader's presence remained high (significant teaching presence). The proportion of participants playing the various roles (thought leader, mentor, facilitator, etc) remained largely constant despite the increase in the level of the dialogue
The follow-up survey of participants suggested that where there was more interaction there were triggers for more-in depth conversations and higher learning
The paper encourages further research in the analysis of discourse in online CoP, especially with larger samples. Good motivation to continue ....

Brian
-----

Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C. & Anderson, T. (1997) 'Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing'. Journal of educational computing research, 17 (4)

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts', International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 12, pp.8-22. (ONLINE - http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00197319/ - accessed 18.07.2010)

Thomson, R., Reeves-Lipscombe, D., Stuckey, B. & Mentis, M. (2009) 'Discourse Analysis and Role Adoption in a Community of Practice'. (ONLINE - http://cpsquare.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/stuckey-etal-aera-discourse_analysis.pdf - accessed 11.07.2010)

Using Atlas.ti

2010-07-18T16:17:00.000+02:00

I decided to take the plunge and download the trial version of the Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) Atlas.ti. Having watched several useful videos explaining the features, I thought the best way to try it out would be to read a paper, link it in the system and record the useful quotations that I found.

Call me old-fashioned, but my first step involved a paper printout and a highlighter pen. I find this more relaxing for the eyes and certainly more portable. Then I recorded some of my highlighting in the pdf file using the tool PDF-XChange viewer; I find this useful for future reference, though if I could ever get use to working directly online it would be quicker.

After loading it into Atlas.ti as a primary document in a project that I had created for my literature review, I selected a few paragraphs that I had identified as useful quotations (in green) and saved them in the Quotations manager - eg, there was a reference made to the development of strong ties even in a short duration community, so I saved this with the code Strong ties.

I can see that linking in relevant papers and saving the useful quotations in a central place will be useful for the literature review. However, after reading a paper one clearly has to take the decision as to whether or not it is sufficiently relevant to the research as to warrant coding it, as it takes effort - I would say around an hour to read the paper, highlight bits, save in Atlas.ti and mark-up quotations.

Based upon this experience, I think I will continue with the trial and some other papers. Then decide whether to continue. But first impressions are positive and I can already see the value of the tool for coding the qualitative data that I will collect later in surveys, interview transcripts, forums (web pages saved as pdf?), images, etc

Keeping a grasp of the bigger picture

2010-07-12T18:47:00.001+02:00

As I read more papers - which provide enticing references to yet more papers - I wonder about keeping track of the bigger picture and indexing what I am seeing. So far I have used the mind mapping software MindManager, together with EndNote for referencing. Very good tools, but not enough to hold my thinking together.

In thinking about how best to process the qualitative data that I will collect in the future, I've been wondering about using a CAQDAS package such as Atlas.ti or NVivo (possibly the former as it is used by my university). I understand that any package requires a certain amount of investment to simply set it up and I would still need to define my coding scheme (after all it cannot do everything!). But the more I look into them, the more attractive they look: I see that these packages can be used to manage one's portfolio of sources (docs, pdf, images, video) and for building up a literature review and citation index.

So is the investment in such a tool worth it (I mean in terms of effort as, for example, Atlas.ti offer a competitive price for students) and will it really help me? Do other PhD students have experience of using these tools to support their research?

Would love to hear comments from users, good or bad.

Online learning Communities

2010-07-10T13:27:00.000+02:00

A book by Barab, Kling and Gray (2004) on virtual communities for learning contains many papers relevant to my research, including one by Riel and Polin (2004) called 'Online learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments'. They note that the term community has become somewhat of a cliché in the world of online learning, confirming what several other writers have said including Grossman and Wineburg (2000) who noted that: 'Groups of people become community, or so it would seem, by the flourish of a researcher’s pen. In this sense, researchers have yet to formulate criteria that would allow them to distinguish between a community of teachers and a group of teachers sitting in a room for a meeting.' (p.6).

Riel and Polin suggest a rather long definition of community that encompasses: variety in terms of participants age, experience, etc; culture defined by norms, values and routines; artefacts produced from joint activity and individual sensemaking; and multi-generational, in terms of members coming and going. They caution that communities are not always healthy contexts for learning. They may be dysfunctional, enforce conformity, closed to new participants, scattered and isolated. And in these cases, learning may be more problematic: 'simply labelling a group as a community neither ensures that it functions as one, nor that it is a beneficial, cohesive unit in which learning will take place readily' (p.18). These sound like very wise words and ones that we as researchers would do well to remember.

Riel and Polin propose a typology of three 'distinct but overlapping forms of learning within communities' (p16):

Task-based: groups of people working together intently over a limited period of time on a particular product. Focus is often on diversity of experience to solve particular, challenging problems through collaboration. Participation is often mandatory, for example as part of a course, and the output a one-off (not meant for further revision).

Whereas I can recognise such a grouping and see it as a rather loose community, I feel instinctively that it is too prescriptive to limit this type to fixed products.

Practice-based: usually based around a profession or discipline, these groups focus on sharing and developing good practice. Participation is usually voluntary. The focus is on knowledge in use rather than on the process of knowledge development. The group is dynamic and lives through several generations of members. Products (stories, procedures, routines, etc) represent work in progress, the reification of the group's knowledge and are meant for further revision.

This is the classic Community of Practice as proposed by Wenger. It represents the cornerstone of many modern-day knowledge management strategies for organisational learning.

Knowledge-based: here the focus is on the use and reuse of knowledge in a never ending cycle, as proposed by the likes of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Brown and Duguid (1991). Products are produced only so far as necessary to express the current state of thinking and to help the dialogue and knowledge development to continue through further cycles. As such reports are meant to invite comment and revision. In such communities, there is considerable focus on the process of knowledge development and group collaboration.

We can see examples of knowledge-based communities in research. The problem is often, however, that in order to attract sponsorship and funding they are obliged to produce useful products and cannot simply continuing developing knowledge in isolation from practice (quite right too!)

Learning organisation, represented by the intersection of the three types of community (Riel and Polin, 2004, p.40)

I find these typologies to be useful in identifying perhaps extreme examples of communities, however in the majority of cases examples of working communities for learning are a hybrid of all three types; effectively collaborating in joint activities, producing useful outputs related to practice and helping to advance the state-of-the art in domain knowledge.

I am wondering into which category I would place the recent Learning Event that I followed. It was tasked-based in that it focused on completing specific activities in a limited period, producing outputs that were one-off and including a group of teachers that was fixed over the duration. On the other hand, the outputs were only the by-products of the process of learning and the focus was on knowledge development - though this was at the individual, rather than the group level. Similarly, emphasis was placed on concrete practice and real life contexts, so in this respect the community was practice based. Perhaps this only serves to illustrate the fragile nature of the classification scheme proposed by Riel and Polin.

Brian.

Barab, S., Kling, R. & Gray, J. (Eds.) (2004) Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning, Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991) 'Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation'. Organization Science, 2 (1), pp.40-57

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S. & Woolworth, S. (2000) What Makes Teacher Community Different from a Gathering of Teachers?, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. (ONLINE - http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Community-GWW-01-2001.pdf - accessed 10.07.2010)

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York, Oxford University Press, Inc.

Riel, M. & Polin, L. (2004) 'Online learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments', in Barab, S., Kling, R. & Gray, B. (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning, pp.16-50, Cambridge University Press

School-teachers' learning community

2010-07-07T10:05:00.002+02:00

Came across this relevant and interesting paper by Hlapanis and Dimitracopoulou (2007) in which the University of Aegean in Greece implemented a learning community for in-service teachers from the Dodecanese Islands. Formal learning in a variety of e-learning courses was complemented by informal learning in through collaboration. They produced a case study of how the community was created and how it evolved, based upon research using mixed-methods, including quantitative data from Social Network Analysis (SNA) of the communication between participants and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews of students (the teachers) and instructors.

They used e-moderators - ‘teachers who design, facilitate and direct the cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes’ (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p. 49) - to continuously facilitate a discussion between participants and to engender a feeling of community.

They conclude, inter alia, that:

The creation of a community of learners does not happen automatically or suddenly but rather as a result of specific actions of all participants. It took around 4 to 5 weeks for the community to develop and become self-sustaining
The use of e-moderators was essential for the community creation and evolution. They used a mixture of low and high intervention styles, at various points, as appropriate to the stage of evolution of the community and its degree of autonomy.
The data collected helped the instructors understand when the community took off and when intervention was necessary. Reports on group activity were made available to everyone in the community to help with self-regulation - however, the research was largely inconclusive as to whether this aspect was positive

There are remarkable similarities between these results and the implications arising from my research on the recent Learning Event.

Brian.

Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003) E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice (London, Routledge).
Hlapanis, G. & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2007) 'The School-Teacher's Learning Community: matters of communication analysis'. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16 (2), pp.133 - 151

Report from my research on the LE web 2.0

2010-07-04T19:02:00.022+02:00

Here is a first version of my report. I'd welcome any comments or suggestions for improvements.

Following this Learning Event has been an enlightening experience for me, both in terms of the results obtained and as a research experience. When I started I was convinced that I would find that socialising and making friendships would be really important. And whereas it proved to be an important contributing factor, participants indicated that they were mainly focused on completing the (cognitive) activities and meeting new people. On further reflection this seemed to be due, at least in part, to the very short duration and intensity of the LE (only twelve days) and a focus on trying out the tools. People were pragmatic and learning was mainly individual (though supported by the group).

The LE gave the participants an opportunity to try out online collaboration and group work, supported by social technologies. However, one of my reflections was that you need much more time to build the trust, shared values and reciprocity associated with a community. So the seeds were sown, in terms of strengthening ties, but they failed to blossom into a community before the close of the event. To carry this forward the implication is that one would either need a longer LE or one could bring the group back together again at some point in the future to share and discuss their experiences, through further planned activities. I feel that simply leaving the LE environment open for further discussion would not work.

This connects well to another reflection I had. If we wish to support teachers to develop their competence in online collaboration and group leadership, then more reflection on the process itself would be needed. I found this meta-reflection missing from the LE. The literature I reviewed suggested that this learning to become autonomous and meta-reflection may need a stronger teaching presence at key points during the LE. That is a moderator or facilitator to support reflection, guide learners who were experiencing problems and generally encourage collaboration.As the group becomes confident and competent, the teaching presence gradually fades into the background.

Concerning the research process itself, I learnt the importance of getting the questions right in the questionnaire, of avoiding dichotomies when respondents see both scenarios as existing in parallel and of the considerable time taken to analyse the data collected. I'll be much better prepared for next time.

Last but not least, I learned how incredibly enthusiastic teachers can be about online learning and about wishing to develop their own competence. I look forward to continuing my research with eTwinning.

Want to know more? Read my report and let me know what you think.

Brian

Research presence

2010-06-19T10:55:00.000+02:00

Inspired by a posting by Justin on his blog concerning social presence, I've been thinking about the importance of awareness, presence and connectedness in the context of my research. Perhaps we could call this research presence. Seems quite appropriate: to what extent are people aware of my research and of my contributions? Do I have a presence in the research community and do I feel present? And am I connected to the right people, the state-of-the art in terms of results and the right theories.

I have to say that the answer for the present is no. Having taken some time off for family reasons, I feel that I am less present than I was before. Why? I am less aware of what is going on and I have simply forgotten some of the things that I learned earlier - you know the feeling, you find an interesting paper on the web, you go to download it for future reference, only to find not only is it stored in your library, but you've annotated it with your comments!

I've been less present in terms of my blog postings, my participation in the weekly Skype sessions with fellow students and in discussions with colleagues at EUN. Perhaps more importantly, I have not yet got into the habit of writing down my thoughts as I read and observe - an essential activity for research presence.

It may not be New Year but it is an opportune moment to set myself a resolution to address this, starting here. Justin's posting is excellent and got me thinking about theory. He has a research presence, going beyond his social presence and connecteness by articulating his thoughts on research, encouraging his reader to enter into a dialogue with him. An essential part of his own reification process.

Reflections from EDEN

2010-06-14T14:12:00.000+02:00

I've just spent a few enjoyable days at the EDEN annual conference in Valencia. I gave a keynote presentation together with my colleague Maruja; she presented the EU policy perspectives whilst I focused on practice. For our workshop on digital competences, we produced a brochure containing relevant projects.

Martin Bean, the OU's Vice Chancellor, gave an enlightened presentation in which he referred to formal learning taking place in the context of informal social clouds where students interact with their peers. The OU has conducted a study of their students which highlighted that learners seek real-time interaction with personal expression. They dislike anything that gets in the way of this. Consequently the OU is trying out a number of projects that support student interaction. He referred to the OU's cooperation with Google and gave the example of an investigation that was carried out to find out why so many people entered the search word Pompeii at the same time that the servers almost crashed. It transpired that there was an episode of the BBC's popular Dr Who programme on TV and he visited Pompeii. This was an example of the thirst that people have for learning and how it can be triggered by the simplest of events. Martin emphasised the importance of considering People, Process and Technology. He indicated that for too long the focus had been on the hardware and software associated with elearning, when it should have been on the brainware. If Martin matches up to his promises and is able to convince his colleagues at the OU to embrace the opportunities that he described, then the university is in for an important transformation which will be significantly impacted by ICT.

George Siemens, from the Athabasca University in Canada, described the challenge of learning in the modern age as a "combat for lucidity". With so much information now available at our finger tips, he said that the Internet has made us dimmer and what is needed is a move towards critical thinking and deep thought. He suggested that the emphasis currently placed on the need for multitasking is just an excuse for people who simply couldn't concentrate on anything for very long. Continuing this radical and controversial line of argument, he said that he no longer believed in the traditional course, which remains "the currency of the educational system" - his argument being that universities simply cannot keep up with the constant growth and change taking place in information. However, I feel his argument does not hold if universities do the right thing and focus on developing learners' competences, including the ability to deal with rapid information development, rather than on the transfer of knowledge.

Grainne Conole, from the OU, led a very interesting and interactive workshop for the OPAL project. We discussed the working definition for Open Educational Practices proposed by the project and the key issues to be addressed. In a very short period, by using short brainstorming sessions intermixed with the rotation of participants between tables, they obtained valuable input for their project. It is clear for me that Open Educational Practice has come of age and must go hand-in-hand with the use of Open Educational Resources (OER).

eTwinning Professional Development Workshop

2010-05-28T15:35:00.000+02:00

I am really sorry that I am missing the PDW in Sardinia this week. It would have been a good opportunity to have met face-to-face with some of the teachers who are using the Learning Events and Groups.

I produced a presentation giving some of the results of my online survey folloing the Learning Event on web 2.0 (see link). I hope people find it interesting and look forward to receiving feedback.

Brian at home in the UK with his family

Online Educa Berlin

2010-05-12T13:17:00.000+02:00

I've submited a proposal to present my research 'work in progress' at Online Educa taking place in Berlin in December. I would like to present my observations from the recent eTwinning Learning Event on web 2.0 and, in particular, an analysis of the online survey that I did.

If accepted, I understand there will also be a possibility to produce a paper for the proceedings, which will be co-authored by Julie-Ann (my supervisor) and Anne Gilleran (from EUN).

The experience of doing this will be useful for when I prepare more formal academic papers in 2011. Fingers crossed that it is accepted!

Brian

Amazing book

2010-05-04T16:07:00.001+02:00

Found this book thanks to the eTwinning newsletter. Looks interested and very much related to our recent Learning Event.

Online questionnaire

2010-05-01T13:18:00.001+02:00

I've been working on an online questionnaire to solicit more in-depth feedback from the teachers who participated recently in the web 2.0 learning event. A test version of the questionnaire is available here; the real version should be launched this week, now that ethical approval has been given by the University.

I've focused my questions on the impact of social connections and the extent to which competences were developed. It is certainly a challenge to word the questions in such a way that present a choice between equally plausable and valid answers. It was also a challenge to find a way to present the questions in the way that I wanted, using the options available in the tool that I am using. I must say I am quite impressed with how simple FreeOnline Surveys.com is to use. And the results are presented in user friendly way.

I am looking forward to seeing the answers. Fingers crossed that a good percentage of participants respond.

Brian.

eTwinning Learning Event

2010-04-17T13:32:00.001+02:00

I am observing and participating in an eTwinning Learning Event for around 200 teachers entitled ‘Exploiting Web 2.0 - eTwinning and Collaboration’. The online community runs from 12 until the 24 April. Supported by a teacher who is an expert in this area, activities are set every day for the participants to use web 2.0 tools and to share their experiences, whilst working towards the common goal of devising an eTwinning project. Tools include blogs, wikis, bookmark sharing sites, collaborative web documents (Google docs), online video and slide sharing, etc. Forums are used for the teachers to set up small working groups and to post their comments.

The event is centred on learning-by-doing, with peers, in the context of eTwinning practice. It is well organised, focused and demanding. It’s quite a challenge to keep up with the activities, on top of one’s daily work, however the asynchronous nature of the learning means that you can easily catch up if you fall a little behind.

Interactions are in English and the participants are mainly non-native English speakers, though some of them teach the subject.

Each evening there is a flurry of activity as participants turn from their daily teaching practice to take part in the event. The first activity alone led to around 170 posts from participants introducing themselves and commenting on the thought-provoking YouTube video Shift happens. This degree of activity presents quite a challenge if you are interested in reading and commenting on the work of others. One evening I was unable to enter the forums and the friendly message ‘This page is under technical maintenance please come back in a few minutes’ was either a result of unfortunate timing or a reflection of how busy the system was.

It was difficult for me to introduce myself, not being a teacher, and this was compounded on the second day when we were asked to split into small groups reflecting the age groups that we teach. Where was I to go? Do I a) adopt a false persona and enter a random group, b) ask the organiser to create a special group for me or c) recognise that I must sit out on this part of the exercise. I decided on the latter: a) would have been unethical and b) would have meant that, as a researcher, I was asking the context to be changed to reflect my needs. An interesting quandary for phenomenological research when one has a different identity!

Looking through the nature of the interactions, I see several types of message:

°   Hi this is me and this is my contribution
°   Building upon an earlier contribution of someone else
°   Encouragements like. ‘yes, we are all really busy and it’s ok to be tired’
°   Requests for help, and replies

I also noted, during the introductions, that there were some messages that referred to existing relationships and how good was to be working together again. Often these related to previous face-to-face encounters or collaborations on line, in the context of eTwinning. Indeed, a lot of the social chit-chat seems to be between participants who already know each other. It would be interesting to try to identify social interaction between participants who were previously strangers and see if this is increasing over time.

Observing the data is quite a challenge as, due to the very nature of the event, it is spread across several tools and environments: in forums, blogs, wikis, etc. And messages are increasingly referring to off-piste interactions by email, which of course we cannot see. My conclusion is that it would be impracticable to do a systemic analysis of the dialogue across this event. And many of the interactions anyway, at least so far, tend to be short, individual and without follow-up. Perhaps the sub-group work will be interesting to follow over the following days.

More about my project

2010-04-11T17:57:00.000+02:00

I am still finalising the proposal for my research with the university, but the research questions at least seem to becoming stable.

In a virtual environment for teachers' continuous professional development:

How does an online community influence the development of teachers' competence in online collaboration and discourse?
How do social aspects, such as social presence and social ties, contribute to this collaboration and discourse?

Between now and the end of summer, I shall be focusing my attention on becoming more familiar with the eTwinning environment, understanding the kind of data it will be practicable for me to collect and deciding how I shall analyse this qualitative data. For the former, my plan is to participate in some of the eTwinning Groups and Learning events, observing what happens and noting the characteristics of the online discourse. For the latter, there seem to be many approaches to analysing qualitative data - including narrative analysis, discourse analysis, grounded theory approaches, conversation analysis, etc - so I am reading some of the academic books and papers to become more familiar with their relative strengths.

Here is my schedule - I hope you can read it (click on the image to see it bigger).

Brian.

Getting started

2010-04-11T13:08:00.000+02:00

This is my first foray into blogging. It's never easy to start, but here we go.

I aim to keep these pages up to date as I progress through my research activities, sharing my thoughts and my experiences. I hope you find them useful. Do please leave me a comment (bottom of the page) or send me an email (see my full profile). It's nice to have feedback.