But the thing that occurs to me is not that people are dumb or lazy, but that they have limited critical thinking skills and not been in a position to develop them.  It’s not something we teach well in schools and something that is hard to get university students to engage in, particularly when it comes to use of technology.  I should know, I teach first year information systems.  I realised as I was editing the scrugged paper that we should be thinking of the problem displayed in this incident in terms of learning outcomes, because, really, this is an outcome of learning as it has been achieved by these users.

One of the most useful resources I use for my first year course is the SOLO taxonomy (Biggs and Collis, 1982).  There is a very simple and clear version of it here. Basically, it allows an educator to analyse how students are approaching learning and gives very specific ways of thinking about the outcomes.  What more could one want from a tool called “Structured Observation of Learning Outcomes”.  Applying these observed learning outcomes to what seems to be happening in incidents like the ReadWriteWeb saga, not to mention the Beijing Olympic Ticketing Scam (which I discuss in a paper in AJTE (PDF)), we can actually see the problem very clearly.

SOLO taxonomy

Pre-structural: here students are simply acquiring bits of unconnected information, which have no organisation and make no sense.

• Individual knows there is a site called Facebook and that you can log in.

Unistructural: simple and obvious connections are made, but their significance is not grasped.

• Individual knows you can search for a site called facebook and log in

Multistructural: a number of connections may be made, but the meta-connections between them are missed, as is their significance for the whole.

• Individual knows you can go to a site called facebook.com and log in

Relational level: the student is now able to appreciate the significance of the parts in relation to the whole.

• Individual knows you can go to http://facebook.com and log in

At the extended abstract level, the student is making connections not only within the given subject area, but also beyond it, able to generalise and transfer the principles and ideas underlying the specific instance.

• Individual knows you can hit CMD+L, type FA, hit the down arrow and then enter and then log in to facebook (For windows users, start with CTRL+L)

Breaking down the ways of approaching browsing the web from a cognitive perspective shows a clear distinction between the processes that people use to navigate.  It’s not a perfect fit, but we can begin to see that at the abstract and extended abstract level, individuals are able to use whatever shortcuts available in their browser to assist in their browsing – they are extending their knowledge outside of simple browsing and into the nitty gritty of the functioning of the browser itself.  These are processes that become ingrained into our habits, for I think I and many others I know, work in that level.  But the majority of what we teach, the processes that teachers know (or at least the outcomes that students display), seem to occur at the uni- and mulitstructural level.  And with each passing year, it seems that there are fewer opportunities to engage in learning activities that develop deeper cognitive structures.

Reference:

Biggs, J and Collis, K. (1982) Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO taxonomy New York: Academic Press

Having defined learning, I start to unpack the ‘conjoined activities’ of teaching and learning because neither is done in a vacuum and although both can occur without the other.

{Begin extract}

As an example of the espoused process of knowledge co-construction, teaching at tertiary level has been described as a conversation between the student and the teacher (Laurillard, 1993).  Laurillard (1993 p84) describes a “principled approach to generating teaching strategy”, which incorporates a “continuing dialogue between teacher and student … [which] must reveal both participant’s conceptions [of topic content]” through interaction or conversation.  Thus teaching is a social interaction, although teaching can occur without the intended learning occurring in those taught.  Conversely, learning can occur without teaching.  Neither activity guarantees, nor is guaranteed by, the other.  This is because the individual and the social are engaged in a reciprocal process of knowledge construction (Rogoff, 1990, Kuutti, 1991).  This changing relationship between teaching and learning is central to the constructivist view.  However it also provides one of the problematics of definitions of teaching and learning as a conjoined activity.  This is because there is a tendency to discuss the terms as distinct activities rather than two that are mutually entwined.  As Grossen (2000 p30) states “learning and teaching are two complementary activities”.  Structured learning environments may be more conducive to learning, when teaching is applied effectively, meaning that understanding the learning environment and its role in the reciprocal relations of students and teachers is essential.  This distinction of ‘effective teaching and learning’ is becoming a mantra in educational circles (Ballantyne, Bain and Packer, 1999), providing for ways to ensure that any teaching done results in learning by students.  The concept of shared understanding, or intersubjectivity, has long been used as a guide for education (Newman et al., 1989), that is, the student will come to share the knowledge of the teacher, although it is rarely fully achieved.  It is held that through interactions (Newman et al., 1989) intersubjectivity is achieved over time.  However the less visible, immediate and accessible forms of interaction that comprise communication in an electronically mediated environment may be less conducive to a high degree of intersubjectivity, because there are few opportunities to engage in interactions that work to clarify and monitor the response and behaviour of the participants in the interaction.

{End extract}

One of the things that really helps to define ‘teaching’ is the monitoring of students and clarification for them when needed.  If we do not do these things, then our teaching efforts revert to the old cynical form where the ideas flow from the notes of the teacher to the notes of the student without touching the minds of either.  This is not conducive to learning and I say that based on previous experience (as a learner, although I’m sure there were some early sessions of mine that could be described that way).

I still sometimes shudder when I see ‘effective teaching and learning’ because it seems to imply that there is a recipe out there for doing it right.  The problem with that is that each group, and every session is different and what is effective for one group will fall flat for another.  Thus, to be ‘effective’ in teaching and learning is to recognise it is a conversation and to engage.

References:

Ballantyne, R., Bain, J. D. and Packer, J. (1999) Researching University teaching in Australia: Themes and issues in academics’ reflections in Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 24, pp 237-257.

Grossen, M. (2000) Institutional Framings in Thinking, Learning and Teaching, in Social Interaction in Learning and Instruction: The Meaning of Discourse for the Construction of Knowledge, Cowie, H. and van der Aalsvoort, G. (Eds) Pergamon, Amsterdam.

Kuutti, K. (1991) Activity Theory and its application to information systems research and development, in Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Nissen, H., Klein, H. K. and Hirschheim, R. (Eds) Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland, pp 529-549.

Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology, Routledge, London.

Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989) The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press, New York.

In the last post, Interpersonal Interactions, I started to discuss what I mean by interaction.  Within learning environments, it is very much an interpersonal process.  Seeing as the focus of my research is the way people learn, it’s important to have some definition of what we mean by learning.  I think the whole of my thesis (all 280+ pages) helps to define learning, particularly mediated learning, but in order to create a shared understanding of learning, I need to establish how I view it.  I welcome comments that aid in the elaboration of this social process.

{Begin extract}

Defining learning is a complex issue with multiple perspectives and theoretical underpinnings.  Most recently, constructivist principles have focused on the construction of knowledge by individuals, either solely or in groups.  Constructivism has its roots in the work of Bruner (1966) and deals with four major aspects: (i) how individuals are predisposed to learning; (ii) how a body of knowledge can be structured for ready construction by learners; (iii) the effective sequencing of materials which provide access to knowledge construction opportunities; and (iv) the nature of incentives and penalties.  Effective methods for structuring knowledge should result in simplification, the generation of new propositions, and an increase in the manipulation of information.  This is because these attributes are seen as being those possessed by individuals who demonstrate competence within a domain of activities (Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996).  Jonassen’s (1998 online) version of constructivism views knowledge as “individually constructed and socially co-constructed by learners based on their interpretations of experiences in the world”.  Co-construction refers to the reciprocal processes of interaction between two people, which shape the processes and outcomes of the constructive process (Lawrence and Valsiner, 1993).  For instance, two individuals can discuss a concept, each adding their own insight, which may result in a shared definition of that concept.  However, the co-construction interaction between humans mediated by non-human artefacts is less well understood.  Objectivist notions, on the other hand, treat knowledge as an ‘object’ that can be transmitted and acquired by learners.  While initially constructivist philosophy focused on the notion of the individual working with knowledge, some social constructivist positions also take the view that “cognition is a situated activity rooted in social practices” (Grossen, 2000 p21).

{End extract}

I recently came across a book entitled “The Nurnberg Funnel” which I think is related to the Nuremburg Funnel, if not the same thing.  It is particularly relevant for discussing how we teach and learn about the use of computers and I find it quite distressing that many of the training tools we have take on the conceptualisation of pouring information into one’s head as a metaphor for learning (what for my discussion of this later).  This is very much an objectivist approach: fact-based, easily assessable, and easily learnt.  However, I much prefer co-construction as a model and need to further develop some of my ideas on adult learning and how we get there.

References:

Bruner, J. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Carrol, J.M. (1990) The Nurnberg Funnel: Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer Skill, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Ericsson, K. A. and Lehmann, A. C. (1996) Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints, Annual Review of Psychology, 47, pp 273-305.

Grossen, M. (2000) Institutional Framings in Thinking, Learning and Teaching, in Social Interaction in Learning and Instruction: The Meaning of Discourse for the Construction of Knowledge, Cowie, H. and van der Aalsvoort, G. (Eds) Pergamon, Amsterdam.

Jonassen, D. (1998) Designing Constructivist Learning Environments, In Instructional theories and models, Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed) Lawrence, Mahwah, NJ, http://www.ed.psu.edu/insys/who/jonassen/cle/cle.html.

Lawrence, J. A. and Valsiner, J. (1993) Conceptual roots of internalisation: From transmission to transformation, Human Development, 36, pp 150-167.

{Begin extract}

Interpersonal interactions – those between individuals – take many forms, which can have quite different consequences depending upon their intensity, duration, purpose and degree of shared understanding. [Shared understanding becomes quite important and is one of the facets of interaction that causes the sense of disquiet from applying the term to interactions with an artefact. Artefacts do not 'share' our understanding.] Each form of interaction may consist of negotiation between the individual and the social, that is, both the knowledge to be learnt and the social environment in which it is presented (Newman, Griffin and Cole, 1989).  As an example, individuals learn through constructing knowledge and contextualising it with their peers or in the location of learning.  Internet-based learning interactions are supported by the presence and permanency of text, the visual and perceptual qualities of the computer screen and associated physical environment, and the capacity to use previous utterances in responses, where applicable (Russell and Cohen, 1997). [I define utterances later.] However, the potential of these interactions can be weakened by the absence of many of the cues and clues that are inherent qualities of close interpersonal interactions, such as facial expression, linking modality of speech to utterances, and frequent opportunities for developing shared understanding through sharing and appraising utterances.  It is through these kinds of face-to-face, interpersonal interactions that sociocultural views claim that intersubjectivity – shared understanding between participants – evolves most strongly (Rogoff, 1990, Wertsch, 1998).  The value of proximity between a teacher and student is usually premised on the learner being able to understand what the teacher proposes, their point of view, thereby achieving intersubjectivity through a process of listening, making sense, raising questions and using responses to those questions to gain a greater shared understanding.  Hence, from such a perspective, the degree by which internet-based interactions are able to foster intersubjectivity between teacher and learners is central to understanding its potential as a learning medium.  Such an appraisal may open up consideration of how inter-psychological processes – those between individuals and social partners and artefacts (Vygotsky, 1978) – might be constructed in instances of human interactions and learning that are mediated by electronic technology.

{End extract}

Having reread this (for the umpteenth time), I still don’t think I’m clear on the definition of ‘interaction’.  It was complex before we introduced computers and the Internet, and it’s so much more complex now.  Interaction, interactivity, intersubjectivity, interpersonal, inter-psychological – these words become significantly more complex when we introduce ‘semi-intelligent’ artefacts.  Mobile devices with ‘virtual reality’ apps blur the lines even more.

However, in a later post, I will be elaborating how interacting with a text book can be construed as interacting with the author, albeit in a limited fashion.  Perhaps interacting with a computer is, in fact, interacting with the designers of the computer and the applications.  I believe the treatment I did of those aspects was rather limited and perhaps this is one direction for future research.

References

Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989) The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press, New York.

Russell, A. L. and Cohen, L. M. (1997) The reflective colleague in e-mail cyberspace: a means for improving university instruction, Computers and Education, 29:3, pp 137-145.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society – the development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998) Mind as Action, Oxford University Press, New York.

The quote by Suchman still holds but I’d expand it to include all interactions, between people and machines and between people.  I don’t think it yet holds for interactions between machines, but I can’t say that that will remain the case.  I’ve highlighted the part of the quote that holds particularly for interactions between people – the tension between the writer’s intent and the reader’s intent.

First, that the problem of mutual intelligibility between humans and machines recommends a research agenda aimed less at the creation of interactive machines, than at the writing of dynamic artefacts intended to be legible, or intelligible to their users.  This shift brings a rich set of resources from recent reconceptualizations of what writing and reading involve, including the inevitable uncertainties in relations of writer’s intentions to readers’ interpretations, and the active role of the reader in giving life and meaning to the text.  And this approach encourages us to explore and articulate the particular dynamics of computational artefacts, and what new possibilities those dynamics afford. (Suchman, 1997, italics added)

There are many interpretations of any text which gives rise to the need to explore the dynamics of people interacting, because we do not yet completely understand that, particularly with the interaction of different cultures across the globe.  The direction of my research remains the same – how do we mediate learning and how can we understand those processes.  There’s a series of posts coming up on those ideas based mainly on my theoretical chapter, but also looking toward the future.

The introduction to this chapter included the Suchman quote above.  There’s a fashion of starting chapters with a pithy quote, but this chapter was the only one that did that.  The quote gave me a starting point – the dynamics of computational artefacts – which underpin ‘online learning’.

{Begin extract}

This chapter proposes that interactions between and among humans and between artefacts and humans are central features of mediated learning and that we need to explore and articulate the particular dynamics of our interactions with computational artefacts as proposed by Suchman (1997) above.  Moreover, the effective mediation between individuals by electronic tools is essential to the process of appropriating socially constituted, but electronically mediated, instruction or online learning.  Specifically, individuals are held to construct their own knowledge separately or as a part of social processes (Holman, Pavlica and Thorpe, 1997, Grossen, 2000).  Online interaction potentially is held to mediate this construction by both enabling and constraining these processes.  This chapter discusses the complex relationship among humans, learning, technology and content in an attempt to understand the pedagogic scope and potential of online learning environments.  This requires specific attention be paid to both discussions of interaction between humans as mediated by electronic media and its relation to learning.  This is applicable to those technologies that mediate between individuals in social processes of learning, which collectively constitute the means of mediating interaction.

{End extract}

Five years on, I’ve broadened my research so the focus is less on the technology and more on the people.  All learning is mediated, whether by language, computers or other artefacts, so the processes being investigated are able to be expanded beyond a simple binary of with computers or without.  My thesis focused on the process of appropriating socially constructed, but electronically mediated, instruction – aka online learning, although a statement of my research goals now would remove ‘electronically’ from ‘but electronically mediated’.  As I explain later in the thesis, all learning is mediated and indeed all interactions between people are mediated.  It’s a simple statement that took thirty pages to elaborate.

References

Suchman, L. (1997) from Interactions to Integrations: A reflection on the future of HCI, In Interact 97:6th IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction – Discovering New Worlds of HCI, Human-computer interaction – INTERACT ’97, Howard, S., Hammond, J. and Lindgaard, G. (Eds) Chapman & Hall (London, UK), Sydney, Australia

Grossen, M. (2000) Institutional Framings in Thinking, Learning and Teaching, in Social Interaction in Learning and Instruction: The Meaning of Discourse for the Construction of Knowledge, Cowie, H. and van der Aalsvoort, G. (Eds) Pergamon, Amsterdam.

Holman, D., Pavlica, K. and Thorpe, R. (1997) Rethinking Kolb’s Theory of Experiential Leaning in Management Education: The Contribution of Social Constructionism and Activity Theory, Management Learning, 28:2, pp 135-148.

It is proposed for effective online learning to occur that both student-teacher and student-student interactions must be fostered.  [...]  Through understanding how learning is mediated online, a greater understanding of relationships and outcomes between humans and non-human artefacts may result.

This is still broadly applicable.  The deleted sentence referred to distance learners, but the focus is now more broadly referred to as ‘flexible learning’.  I think flexible learning is what we do, particularly when we use the Internet to look something up, when we ask a friend (or more knowledgeable expert), when we use trial and error.  The learning process becomes inherently flexible and specific to the kinds of tasks we are trying to achieve.  In my thesis, I focussed on ‘interactions’, including between individuals and between an individual and a technology.  All learning is based on interactions – reading books is interacting with the author, albeit once-removed.

[...]

This research is conceptualised within a framework that identifies both the computer and the Internet as a ‘tool’.  Sociocultural theories of learning provide a conceptual framework for studying both individual and social levels of human practice and relations between them (Kuutti, 1996, Lewis, 1997, Wertsch, 1998).  This framework permits a rich understanding of the relationship between the individual and the social, rather than one which excludes either human agency in the social or contextuality in the individual (Hung and Wong, 2000, Lewis, 1997).  This means that sociocultural theory provides insights not available within single disciplines associated with learning that focus on one or the other, as well as providing a framework for understanding participatory processes using multiple viewpoints.  However, there are no prescribed processes for achieving this, which allow the use of relevant frameworks to assist in the understanding of processes being investigated.

This paragraph pretty well sums up the aims of most of my research – explicating the interaction between the ‘individual and social levels of human practice’ and any tools we use.  There’s a strong technological focus in my work, but that focus is not simply on computer technology.  The framework I invoke views ‘tools’ to incorporate not only the overt technologies, those that we all view as technology, but also speech and language as technologies.  These technologies mediate our interactions as I discussed in Chapter 2 of my thesis (you can read the original here or hang around till I get to that bit).

[...]

The literature reviewed appears directed towards three goals for technology: (i) to conceive of ways of using it (advocate); (ii) to push forward the established uses (accept); or to (iii) highlight the problems inherent and thus justify its non-use (refuse).  Heidegger (1977 p4) claims that “we shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we merely conceive and push forward the technology, put up with it, or evade it”, (i.e. to critique it).  At times, the relationship an individual has with technology may constitute finding new ways of using it, accepting or refusing its use.  Recognising these three roles may permit an analysis of how the relationship to technology influences the use of technology in the wider sense.  Recognising that a particular individual is promoting technological interventions in education permits the analysis to conceive of the impacts of this view of other individuals for whom the relationship is less conducive to ‘transparent’ use (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p102).

There seems, therefore, to be three roles taken on by teachers and by researchers towards the educational use of technology – advocate, acceptor, or refuser.  But the role of questioner or critic, the role that Heidegger assumes, is often absent from current research on the use of technology in education.  Hence, it is in questioning relationships between the means of mediating and how they influence the acts of learning, a greater understanding of the impact of technology on learning may be gained.

I think these paragraphs still shape my research goals.  The relationships between the mediational means (that is, language and other tools) and their influence on our interactions is an area that needs much deeper thought.  I’m still seeing people grabbing hold of the latest technological meme (eg twitter) and then use it in very superficial ways.  I know there is research being done about how something like twitter enables particular activities and we only have to look to the Iran Elections and Haiti to see the deep and sometimes ongoing connections that are being made.  But just because some connections are made, doesn’t mean that every attempt will allow that to happen.  I think the next bit really helps us think about the processes involved, rather than just the ‘cool’ factor of using Twitter.

In order to investigate these relationships, this thesis is conceptualised within sociocultural theories, which posit the individual in a social framework and assist in answering questions about ‘what is involved, when we say what people are doing and why they are doing it?’ (Burke, 1969, p xv), thus assisting in the role of ‘questioner’ advocated by Heidegger.  Burke provides a framework, which uses five elements (the Pentad), – what is being done (act), who is doing it (agent), how they are doing it (agency), where they are doing it (scene) and why (purpose).  Burke’s pentadic framework has been used extensively as a construct for viewing and analysing many communicative forms and events.  For instance, Kahn-Egan (1997) used Burke’s Pentad to analyse the death by suicide of grunge icon Kurt Cobain, concluding that the scenic parameter of this act had been vastly underrepresented in previous analyses of this incident, that is, the influence of the ‘grunge’ scene and the expectations of people in that scene likely impacted on Cobain’s decision.  Likewise, Freeman (1974, p10) used the Pentad for an analysis of the curriculum and the classroom and concluded that “Burke’s dramatistic metaphor offers a way of looking at the dynamics of human interaction … in the context of more sensitive and aesthetic perspectives”.  The ‘dynamics of human interaction’ are central to the current investigation, particularly as they influence students in online learning environments.

This paragraph really starts to show some of the ‘originality’ and ‘contribution to knowledge’ (a core requirement of Australian PhDs) from my thesis.  The Pentad seemed to be such a useful tool for analysing what we are doing, but seems to be confined to communication studies.  It’s a shame, because it is a very simple metaphor for analysis.  There are many others, but this one spoke volumes to me while I was trying to work out how learning was being mediated.  I probably should write another paper or two about this from some of my research into wikis.

This investigation aims to determine what new understandings result from stepping outside the roles of advocate, acceptor or refuser outlined above.  Questioning the use of technology may lead to new ways of understanding online learning – its physicality, its potential and its role in the future of education.  The relationships between Burke’s Pentadic elements (listed above and discussed later) provide insight into how online learning environments work for particular groups of students and for their teacher, and assist in the identification and establishment of pre-conditions which might need to be met for teaching online to result in learning online.

While the focus of my thesis was ‘online’ learning, it’s considerably broader now, with a focus on Adults learning, or at least post-compulsory education learning.  What happens when individuals from a very structured learning environment get thrown into a far less structured or completely unstructured environment.  After a decade of teaching in Higher Ed, I’m convinced that undergrad work should be less structured (although we have many structured activities) and so-called ‘life-long learning’ is especially unstructured.  How do we make sense of things, particularly the conflicting ideas and concepts we find with the great wealth of information available to us on the web.

Sense-making is a critical part of learning and I’m not sure we have developed processes which allow us to do that in most circumstances.  There is such a complexity of ideas that any attempt to make sense can sometimes be so fraught with possibilities that it is easier to blindly accept what’s in front of us without any attempt to make a specific case.  This latter is probably more in line with Luke‘s research, but it’s been a fruitful area of collaboration for us so far.

In effect, I think where I go from here is building on our understanding of adult learning, furthering how we view interactions with technology and interactions between people mediated by technology and how we make sense of that, all wrapped up in a pedagogical/androgogical  framework. Yes.

References

Burke, K. (1969) A grammar of motives, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Freeman, J. (1974) A Burkean Analysis of the Classroom, In American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois

Heidegger, M. (1977) The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Harper and Row, New York.

Hung, D. W. L. and Wong, A. F. L. (2000) Activity Theory as a Framework for Project Work in Learning Environments, Educational Technology, 40:2, pp 33-37.

Kahn-Egan, S. (1997) Nailed to the Pentad: A Dramatistic Look at the Death of Kurt Cobain, In National Communication Association Convention, Chicago http://www.sla.purdue.edu/people/engl/dblakesley/burke/kahnegan.html.

Kuutti, K. (1996) Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research, in Context and Consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction, Nardi, B. A. (Ed) MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lewis, R. (1997) An Activity Theory framework to explore distributed communities, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, pp 210-218.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998) Mind as Action, Oxford University Press, New York.

I will intersperse this with some comments from experience and a small bit of recent research.

{Begin extract}

A number of previous studies investigating participation in online environments (for example Althaus, 1997, Lund and Volet, 1998, Tarbin and Trevitt, 2001, Carrick-Simpson and Armatas, 2003) have shown low levels of student participation, which undermines simple assertions about engagement and interaction.  One of the reasons for this, according to the research by Carrick-Simpson and Armatas (2003), is that designing for interactivity is not sufficient to engage students’ interest.  Interestingly, students in Carrick-Simpson and Armatas’ research study chose to forego the marks awarded for the assessable online component. {I have evidence for this from my classes, students often choose to forgo smaller, constructive elements of a learning task.} Therefore, simply establishing an online environment, and determining the rates at which students participate, may not provide sufficient understanding of the educational potential of interactions in an online environment because the variation in the ways that students participate is subsumed by a single measure. {Finnegan, Morris and Lee (2009) found differences based on motivation. Motivation seems to be a key determinant, as I found in this research.} Brown and Johnson-Shull (2000) concur, stating that there is a mismatch between what we know and what we do in online forums.  Sheard, Ramakrishnan, and Miller (2003) suggest that there is a major shift required in students’ learning behaviour for them to adopt the collaborative learning style characteristic of an electronic learning community.  Similarly, Kreijns, Kirschner and Jochems (2003) warn against taking for granted that participants will interact socially simply because the environment provides an opportunity to do so.  These studies suggest that simply providing an opportunity for students to interact is insufficient for the active use of the environment. {I think a key term now is ‘engagement’.  How do we engage students in these environments, but more to the point, why are some students not engaged in learning? There may be a mismatch in expectations for what is to be learnt.} Instead, students’ perceptions may be different from their teachers’, particularly as it seems students may choose to forego assessment that is based online.  Perhaps not surprisingly, Bagherian and Thorngate (2000) found that offering a grade for postings has a much stronger effect on online participation than does encouragement from teachers.  However, as noted by Oliver (2002), there are questions concerning the validity of mandating participation that include the kinds of engagement that occur and their consequences for learning outcomes. {Mandating participation was one of the core reasons I undertook this research.  It seems that when students are unable to see the value of participation (specifically, marks), they tend to avoid work.} Nevertheless, computer-mediated discussion forums are becoming common in higher education (Guzdial and Turns, 2000), even though they are still only understood in a relatively limited way, for instance in terms of the motivations for students to engage in ways that lead to rich learning. {At the point, I’m not sure that much has changed.  We’re still working out what works, and each time we start to get a handle on something, there’s another new way of doing things, but I don’t think it’s completely innovative, more that it’s incrementally innovative, but the effects of the increment are unknown and potentially depend on the student audience.}

Valuable insights are now being gained into the understandings and perceptions of the participants (Thomas, Clift and Sugimoto, 1996, Soong, Chan, Chua and Loh, 2001) about students (Hammond, 2000, Kear, 2001, Thomas, 2002) and teachers (Mazzolini and Maddison, 2003). {We need many more insights to really understand these things and it’s not enough to simply start using something because it’s cool.} These include finding that status hierarchies exist between the postings of students and teachers, with many students placing more value on postings from teachers (Thomas et al., 1996).  Status hierarchies negate the social co-construction of knowledge – the reciprocal process of interaction between people – because co-construction is generally theorised as between peers (Lawrence and Valsiner, 1993). {While we’re on social co-construction, I’m not convinced that this happens a lot in university.  Yes, we are able to set up the conditions for it to occur, but a lot depends on the students to see the point of it. I believe social co-construction is the ideal form of learning, but it is not a simple process to implement.} The higher status placed on teacher postings means that there is a danger the learning environment might revert to a novice-expert interaction with little peer interaction, as in didactic face-to-face teaching.  Soong, et al. (2001) found the technical competency of teachers and students, and the collaborative potential of the course to be critical factors for the uptake of electronic resources and interactions.

The lack of participants’ technical competencies may also interfere with the aims and purposes of the learning environments. {It’s hard to believe, but there are still students who come into first year without ever having used a computer.  There are fewer of them each year, but they still exist.} The knowledge required to participate adds an extra layer of knowledge that needs to be gained before engaging in learning the knowledge offered through interaction.  This is highlighted by Hammond’s (2000) findings that for many, particularly students, there is a high threshold of capability to cross, that is, being able to utilise the computer and programs, before entering electronic discussions.  In electronic environments, threaded discussions – those which maintain proximity of messages and responses – allow participants to follow conversations, which may facilitate the co-construction of knowledge, through the build-up of a pattern of information that contributes to understanding.  For Kear (2001), the presentation of threading of discussion was found to have a significant effect on students’ use of a collaborative environment and on the character of the discussion.  However, Thomas (2002) found that the typical non-linear branching structure of online discussion, that is, where individuals may follow different lines of engagement through multiple conversations originating from a single question, may not be sufficient for conversational modes of learning to be realised within an online discussion.  Thus, the role of the teacher may be quite important in determining the nature of the discussion.  Mazzolini and Maddison (2003) questioned the role of the teachers and whether they should be encouraged to take specific roles such as the prominent ‘sage on the stage’ role, the more socially equal constructivist ‘guide on the side’ role, or the ultra low profile role described as the ‘ghost in the wings’.  They found that frequent posting by teachers did not increase student postings and that the lengths of discussions decreased the more teachers posted.  However, the roles and outcomes of those roles for participants are not fully understood. {There are some differences to this in my findings (to come).  The courses I studied looked specifically at the ways in which teachers/tutors engaged.  The framing of the course, that is, what students could expect through involvement, was also a determining factor.}

Other research has focused on students’ participation in online environments.  Many studies ( e.g. Cook, Leathwood and Oriogun, 2001, Gorand and Selwyn, 1999, Ho, 2000) have been undertaken to develop an understanding of the role of participation in online learning environments.  Many of these studies, however, have resulted in a heuristic that participatory online learning environments should be limited in size and break down with large numbers of participants (greater than 50 according to Turoff, Hiltz, Bieber, Fjermestad and Rana, 1999).  However, there is anecdotal evidence that online learning environments facilitate the teaching of large groups where students in diverse geographical locations can be “intellectually linked” (Brahler, Peterson and Johnson, 1999).  This is clearly an area open to further research, because the current findings are inconclusive.  The ability to facilitate learning of students in large cohorts exemplifies one of the potentials for online learning environments, namely cost saving for institutions and more broadly based access for the student.  Thus, the focus of this research is on large enrolment courses (at least 100 students on the books). {Here, we see some of the confusion around the use of technology.  Yes, it can be used in a broadcast mode to reach more students, but when does the interaction between students taper off? Is it related to class size or is there some other variable.}

So, current research suggests that providing opportunities to engage in online learning does not guarantee that students will participate or interact.  The perceptions of individuals, both teachers and students, impact the likelihood of the environment being used in ways that go beyond what some teachers attempt by mandating participation.  This is because the validity of simply mandating participation is questionable (Oliver 2002).  This seems to sidestep the issue of understanding the roles participants may take, and how those roles influence learning through interaction.

{End extract}

I’ve read a few newer papers while going over this, but there doesn’t seem to be any ‘huge’ changes in what we know.  There are still many questions, and still lots of variables.  I think the biggest variable consists of students – their attitudes, their previous experience, their expectations.  The second biggest variable are the teachers – with the same set of criteria – attitude, experience and expectations.

If we consider, for example, twitter, we find that there is a huge variation in the way people use it.  Broadcasting, conversing, questioning, updating, dialoguing are just some of the ways it is used.  Of course, there is also the vicarious participant (that’s just a fancy way of saying lurker, but it imbues the individual with an active role, rather than a passive soak for information).  I find it interesting that we hear people saying ‘I don’t get twitter’ and we hear many teachers saying ‘I don’t get technology’ (okay the latter are probably rarer than the former).  But it demonstrates that there isn’t a consistent understanding of the ways in which technology, namely the computer and Internet, are shaping our lives.  This definitely speaks to the task of becoming a social learning theorist, because most of our uses of technology have social implications.  I’ll be attempting to incorporate some of that into the theoretical chapter, when I get to it.

The next section is the aim of my research.  I’ll be attempting to modify that heavily to update to my new approach, although every time I think about modifying my thesis, I back away.  It seems like it’s hard to change that work.

References:

Althaus, S. L. (1997) Computer-Mediated Communication in the University Classroom:  An Experiment with On-Line Discussions, Communication Education, 46, pp 158?174.

Bagherian, F. and Thorngate, W. (2000) Horses to Water: Why Course Newsgroups Fail, First Monday, 5: 8, http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_8/thorngate/index.html.

Brahler, C. J., Peterson, N. S. and Johnson, E. C. (1999) Developing on-line learning materials for higher education: An overview of current issues, Educational Technology and Society, 2:2, pp 42-60.

Brown, G. and Johnson-Shull, L. (2000) Teaching online: Now We’re Talking, Technology Source, http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/reading/2000-05.asp, Accessed: 2 May 2000.

Carrick-Simpson, B. and Armatas, C. (2003) Students’ interaction with online learning activities: the role of study strategies and goals and computer attitudes, in Interact, integrate, impact: proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Vol. 1, 20th ASCILITE Conference, University of Adelaide, pp 101-114, http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ascilite2003/docs/pdf/104.pdf.

Cook, J., Leathwood, C. and Oriogun, P. (2001) Monitoring Gender Participation and Promoting Critical Debate in an Online Conference, in Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Kennedy, G., Keppell, M., McNaught, C. and Petrovic, T. (Eds) Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of Melbourne, pp 141-150, http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/cookj.pdf.

Finnegan, C., Morris, L.V. & Lee, K., 2009. Differences by Course Discipline on Student Behavior, Persistence, and Achievement in Online Courses of Undergraduate General Education. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 10(1), 39-54.

Gorand, S. and Selwyn, N. (1999) Researching the role of digital technology in widening participation, in British Educational Research Association Conference, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Guzdial, M. and Turns, J. (2000) Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9:4, pp 437-469.

Hammond, M. (2000) Communication within on-line forums: the opportunities, the constraints and the value of a communicative approach, Computers & Education, 35:4, pp 251-262.

Ho, S. (2000) Evaluating Students’ Participation in On-line Discussions, in Ausweb 2000 Southern Cross University, Lismore http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/ho/paper.html.

Kear, K. (2001) Following the thread in computer conferences, Computers & Education, 37:1, pp 81-99.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A. and Jochems, W. (2003) Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research, Computers in Human Behavior, 19:3, pp 335-353.

Lawrence, J. A. and Valsiner, J. (1993) Conceptual roots of internalisation: From transmission to transformation, Human Development, 36, pp 150-167.

Lund, C. and Volet, S. (1998) Barriers to studying online for the first time: Students’ perceptions, in EdTech’98 The Australian Society for Educational Technology, http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/gen/aset/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/l/lund.html.

Mazzolini, M. and Maddison, S. (2003) Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums, Computers & Education, 40:3, pp 237-253.

Oliver, R. (2002) Should we make participation in discussions and bulletin boards in online learners settings compulsory?, In Focusing on the Student. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Perth: Edith Cowan University http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2002/abstracts/oliverr-abs.html.

Sheard, J., Ramakrishnan, S. and Miller, J. (2003) Modelling learner and educator interactions in an electronic learning community, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19:2, pp 211-226, http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/res/sheard.html.

Soong, M. H. B., Chan, H. C., Chua, B. C. and Loh, K. F. (2001) Critical success factors for on-line course resources, Computers & Education, 36:2, pp 101-120.

Tarbin, S. and Trevitt, C. (2001) Try, try again!, in Online teaching and learning with technology: case studies, experience and practice, D Murphy, G Webb and R Walker, (Eds), pp 63-72. London, Kegan Paul.

Thomas, L., Clift, R. T. and Sugimoto, T. (1996) Telecommunication, Student Teaching, and Methods Instruction: An Exploratory Investigation, Journal of Teacher Education, 46:3, pp 165-174.

Thomas, M. J. W. (2002) Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18:3, pp 351-366.

Turoff, M., Hiltz, S. R., Bieber, M., Fjermestad, J. and Rana, A. (1999) Collaborative Discourse Structures in Computer Mediated Group Communications, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4:4, http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/turoff.html.

{Begin extract}

According to Education Network Australia (EdNA, 2004) research into ‘e-learning’ (online learning) in higher education is a ‘hot topic’.  Online learning environments are constituted by two very different aspects of learning management or support (Ruth, 2002b, Inglis, 1999).  The first is concerned with the presentation of information for access by students – the electronic equivalent of the didactic form of the traditional lecture.  The second is concerned with the provision of forums for students to interact and form collaborative and peer-based learning nodes – the electronic equivalent of the tutorial, workshop or laboratory session.  The primary focus of the present research study is on the provision of forums for students to interact, that is the tutorial, peer-based part of a learning program within an online learning environment, implemented in the form of email discussion lists.  Because the technologies, which facilitate these forums, potentially impact on the ways individuals act within a learning environment, they have become a focus for inquiry.  The value of the interactive part of any learning environment is generally premised upon constructivist notions in which students actively construct knowledge through interacting with both the material and their peers (Laurillard, 2002).  The need to explore the processes that comprise these interactions is paramount, as the mediated environment becomes a central part of learning processes.

{Digression}

Back in the day, there was two main ways of interacting – forums and emails.  Now we have such a plethora of processes, it’s hard to keep up.  Wikis, while developed around 1995, so hardly ‘new’, provide a more constructive environment where knowledge is actively being constructed.  Google Wave looks to be even more constructive in this sense as we can now see the construction as it happens (and in playback mode).  It will be interesting to hear learners’ views on this. Even so, text based interaction is still seemingly the norm.

{End Digression}

It is held here that the online learning environment mediates learning through a complex relationship among the act of interacting, the persons interacting, the purpose for the interaction, and the context in which the interaction takes place.  This complex relationship has at least three forms: (i) presenting information or requesting information, which is associated, in an interactive environment, with the posting of a message – displaying knowledge or requesting information, and (ii) the reading of the message – processing information, actively constructing meaning and transferring existing meaning.  A third form, which in effect is consonant with the first, is in replying to a message that has previously been posted and read, that is, the kinds of interactions that initial engagement promotes or constrains.

Thus in an online electronic forum these interactions are often intended to enable students to:

• generate and formulate a proposition or question (i.e. send a message to the class);
• formulate an understanding (i.e. read a message sent to a class list); and
• formulate a response or further question (i.e. respond to a message sent to a class list).

In simplified terms, a student interacts with a message (via an application) sent to a class in order to learn.  In this way, the means of interaction (the computer/application) shape the action in essential ways.  Learning becomes mediated through textual interaction at a time and in a space of their choice.

{Digression}

I’ve deleted a sentence and a diagram here because they do not add much.  If you really want to see it, look at around page 7 of my thesis.

The description I outlined here works not only in the online environment but is possibly a reasonable facsimile of most learning.  In a face-to-face interaction, we hope that students are generating their own understanding of the topic and formulating questions/propositions and from there discussion about topics.  I’ve not had this happen very often with my first year class, but my postgrad class has been a never-ending series of interactions.  The biggest difference between F2F and online is the time for reflection online, although I have seen some very reflective F2F students.

{End digression}

The mediation of interacting in an online environment is via the ‘screenface’, alternatively called the computer desktop, or the ‘glass screen’ (Arnold, 2002), although this is not the complete basis for interaction.  This screenface encompasses the desktop (i.e. the interface to the operating system, such as Microsoft Windows or Mac OS) and the glass screen, as well as more virtual layers in between, that is, the interfaces to computer programs.  At times, the work done by a researcher, as a user of a computer, calls for an engagement at the screen and the desktop.  The location of working is at the screenface, which includes the screen and the desktop as well as any other applications in use, for instance word processor, spreadsheet, statistical package and bibliographic software in particular, each of which can be customised.  Each of these appears on the desktop but overlays it; appears between the desktop and the screen; appears at the screenface.

{Digression}

I’ve deleted a long rambling section on explaining the interface.  I’m not sure all my assumptions were right as I have only ever used university windows machines.  All my computers have been Macs.  If you really want to read it, it’s in the thesis. But my central idea is below – our interactions with our computers is highly individualised.

{End digression}

An individual’s relationship to a computer as an artefact is therefore variable, due to the ways in which each person individually works.  For instance, whilst learning to word process, it may occur that one space becomes the default number of spaces at the end of a sentence, simply because a user learnt to word process rather than to type.  However, for a typist who moves to a computer, the default has always been two, and to change that disrupts the natural flow of their process of typing.  In appropriating the computer, the typist (an expert) may find the setting which allows the default of one to be changed to two, thus making the computer work for them rather than them working with a tool that requires that they modify their specific way of working.  While one space may be a requirement for typesetting of documents as opposed to typewriting, the common practice still being taught in schools is two spaces.

However, in the sharing of electronic documents made possible with computers, the default may be set differently on some computers.  For the individual whose default is set to one, and whose computer checks grammar, they end up with ‘green squiggles’ all over the text, which may disrupt their reading of the text.  For the typist, whose work is being read by another, the request to change to a default of one space means that their way of working must be appropriated by the computer’s default, rather than their own way of working in which they have appropriated the computer.  This kind of appropriation by a computer leads to postulating the computer, and indeed any ‘non-human’ artefact as an ‘actor’ in the network through “encoding more and more of the cognitive abilities attributed to humans into them” (Suchman, 1997, np).  However, while a computer can influence actions, agents are able to advocate, accept or reject the use of any agency, particularly the computer.

This influence relates to Lave and Wenger’s (1991, p102) conception of the “transparency of mediating technologies”.  Transparency refers to the way in which the mediating technology permits or disrupts the activity for which it is used.  So for an individual using a computer, the screenface represents a boundary between the user and the use.  In appropriating the computer, the screenface is becoming transparent.

The teleology of computer use is the screenface.  A user is in a specific relationship with the screenface.  {Deleted a waffle about editing and this research.}.  In effect, what this means is that for some individuals, their relationship to the screen is more important than other aspects of the learning/working environment.  They are appropriating the computer as an essential part of their activities, that is, it is ‘transparent’ to the work they do.  For other users, the screenface may represent a barrier to their use of a computer with all layers behind it being beyond their ability to access.  The screenface, in essence, is opaque.  The transparency of use of mediating technologies and their impact upon individuals’ mediated learning is a central conceptual contribution within this dissertation.  Thus, the screenface becomes a boundary between the real environment and the virtual (online) environment, sometimes transparent, sometimes opaque.  Potentially, the differences in the ways individuals exploit or reject mediating technologies influence the outcomes that are possible.

{End extract}

I still have to find ways of demonstrating that highly proficient users approach technology in this way.  Mostly, this is my experience and what I have observed in highly proficient users.  For instance, many of us no longer have to consider the commands, we use ?+C or CTRL+C for copy. We perhaps even think ‘copy’ as we press that key combination.  Similarly when typing we think the words and they appear on the screen – very little hunting and pecking of keys.  All of this points to a way of working with a computer that is only slightly more complicated than working with pen and paper.  We have appropriated it and it is part of our way of working.  The real question is: how do we get here.  Rejecting technology, because it supplants the human actor, is not really the issue.  The technology extends the human actor.  Ahh, but I get ahead of myself.

{Begin extract}

Perhaps the most significant change in the provision of Australian higher education in recent years has been the integration of the Internet and related technologies into the teaching-learning process.  These technologies have had a significant impact on how education is implemented (Jefferies and Hussain, 1998).  The high rate of uptake and ownership of personal computers, the relatively low (and decreasing) cost of obtaining the technology and the short period in which they have been available have resulted in radical, sudden changes (Hilton, 1999).  To elaborate on this impact, the following sections discuss some key features of these changes, which are now significantly influencing contemporary educational practices.  In particular, this discussion highlights how rapidly these changes have occurred and been incorporated into education practice.

In 1982, the protocol, Transmission Control Protocol over Internet Protocol – TCP/IP which allows different computers to communicate, and on which the Internet is based, was developed (Howe, 1993).  In 1984, the total number of nodes (i.e. individual servers which act in a similar way to telephone exchanges) on the newly forming Internet numbered around 1000 (Hardy, 1993).  Today {2004}, this is less than the number of individuals who are often involved in a single email discussion list hosted on a single node of the Internet.  In the same year, William Gibson coined the term ‘cyberspace’ in his novel Neuromancer (Gibson, 1984).  This word now pervades our language when speaking of the Internet.

In 1989, the first commercial electronic mail carriers (MCI Mail and Compuserve) appeared on the Internet.  Also in 1989, Australia joined the National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET) after having established a permanent email link with the United States of America (USA).  In 1992, database searches were still being performed via dial-up calls to the USA.  These searches are now performed routinely by individuals around the globe, using a computer connected to the Internet.

{Digression}

It’s now just 20 years since Australia joined the network.  I could never find the date when we first had an email link.  It seems lost in the dimness of time – like the first email (which contained something like ‘qwerty’).  The reference to 1992 database searches was my own experience of trying to do a literature review from Bendigo.  There was so much planning before a search – what keywords do I want to use, how should they be combined, how many years do we search, how many records do we retrieve.  All this done before the search was initiated and then we just plugged them in, retrieved the set and disconnected.  The mindset was totally different.  I think I was allowed a maximum of four searches.  I do that many (at least) a day now.

{End digression}

Over the last 15 years, there has been phenomenal growth in the use of internet technologies.  One of these technologies, electronic mail (email), has probably had the most far-reaching consequences for students and the ways in which their learning is supported.  The introduction of the LISTSERV application in 1986 (Hardy, 1993) and the release of Majordomo software in 1992 (Chapman, 1992) allowed a single individual to send a message to multiple recipients.  By 1995, many universities were providing students with university email addresses, thereby ensuring that all students had access to email.  With such universal provision, email became a part of the repertoire of technologies available to support student learning, culminating in an almost ubiquitous provision of online learning environments in one form or another.  Thus, according to Nunan (1996 online)

New ground rules for education are being created by the convergence of low-cost, high-speed computing, high-band-width/low-cost telecommunications and high-capacity low-cost mass-storage that transform both information flow and personal communications.

These technological changes were paralleled by changes in the cost of computers that allow ownership by most people.  The rate of ownership among students and the general public is increasing each year.  Table 1.1 shows the increasing level of ownership of computers and access to the Internet in Australian households for the past five years.  The number of households with computers is approximately two thirds, while the over 16 years of age population with Internet access in any location (for instance, home, work and elsewhere) is higher, having reached three quarters of the population.  These levels of ownership and access are among the highest in the world (National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE), 2002), and indicate a level of acceptance within Australia of the Internet which provides the basis for online learning support to become mainstream.

Table 1.1      Computer and Internet Access in Australia (Source (1) (NOIE, 2000) (2) (NOIE, 2001), (3) (NOIE, 2002) (4) (NOIE, 2003))

{Digression}

Try though I might, I have been unable to locate similar statistics beyond these.  NOIE no longer exists, but some of the pages do exist in the Internet Archive.

I did manage to find the following graph in the ABS site and you can see the full range of information here.

Household Use of Information Technology, Australia (Source ABS: 8146.0 - Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2008-09)

The most striking thing about this graph is the appearance of broadband connections while I was writing my thesis (2003-4).  That change, alone, means that some of my insights may no longer apply, but I need to address them later.

I also like how I state that these stats ‘indicate a level of acceptance within Australia of the Internet’.  That acceptance is now conditional, so it would seem.

{End Digression}

According to NOIE’s data, males and females have access to the Internet in nearly the same proportion of the population, while slightly less than three quarters of those with access actually having used it.  In the period covered by Table 1.1, the difference between the proportion of males and females accessing the Internet has decreased as both have taken up the opportunities provided.  Based on this data, females, however, have made up more ground and are now on a par with males in terms of Internet usage.  This research was undertaken during the rapid rise of the general population, but particularly females gaining access to the Internet.  This is important because these rapid changes in use reflect the uptake of these technologies within tertiary education (Hassan, 2001).

{Digression}

While looking for the updated stats, above, I came across data from 2008 in which there was some discussion of those not having access.  The reason with the highest proportion was ‘no use for the Internet at home’ at 24%.  That’s roughly 10% of Australian households. (See Internet Access at Home towards the bottom of the page.)

{End digression}

This short history introduces the basis for contextualising the use of the Internet in education, particularly in Australia.  In other words, the advent of the Internet in Australia within the last 20 years has rapidly reshaped the options for communicating, teaching and learning and where these can occur.  However, it is less clear whether these options are being enacted in ways that best address the pedagogic properties of what is available.  This is because these properties remain to be fully understood.  As Scribner (1985 p138) proposed,

… hardly have we approached the problem of understanding the intellectual impact of the printing press than we are urged to confront the psychological implications of computerisation.

This dissertation seeks to contribute to this goal of confronting the impact and implications of computerisation on education, particularly through the use of Internet enabled learning, via the technology of email.

{End extract}

While most of my research concerns the implications for computerisation, internetworking and interaction for learning, there is the wider scope of how these shifts are impinging up at least 80% of Australians. The report mentioned above, indicates that 3% of children with Internet access (approximately 72,000 children) report some kind of personal safety or security problem on the internet.  This needs investigation because ‘some kind’ could be concern about being bullied to actually being bullied among other things.  I think this needs to be contextualised with the offline rates of ‘problems’.  That raw information cannot really provide a good indication of what needs to be done and whatever proposals are enacted means that we may not have an opportunity to elaborate these issues.

References

Chapman, D. B. (1992) Majordomo: How I manage 17 Mailing Lists Without Answering “-request” Mail, 1992 LISA VI, Long Beach CA

Gibson, W. (1984) Neuromancer, Ace Books, New York.

Hardy, H. E. (1993) Usenet: The History of the Net In School of Communications, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI.

Hassan, R. (2001) Net results: knowledge, information and learning on the Internet, Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2:2, pp 44-57.

Hilton, T. S. E. (1999) A model for Internet-enhanced education systems derived from history and experiment, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 39:3, pp 6-17.

Howe, D. (Ed.) (1993) The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, http://www.foldoc.org.

Jefferies, P. and Hussain, F. (1998) Using the Internet as a teaching resource, Education and Training, 40:8, pp 359-365.

NOIE (2000) Current State of Play – November 2000, National Office for the Information Economy, http://www2.dcita.gov.au/ie/publications/2001/06/csop Accessed: April 7 2004.

NOIE (2001) Current State of Play – November 2001, http://www2.dcita.gov.au/ie/publications/2001/06/csop, Accessed: April 7 2004. [Note: could not find in Internet Archive.]

NOIE (2002) Current State of Play – November 2002, http://www2.dcita.gov.au/ie/publications/2001/06/csop, Accessed: April 7 2004. [Note: web address is wrong and could not find in Internet Archive]

NOIE (2003) Pocket Statistics, http://www2.dcita.gov.au/ie/publications/2003/07/pocket_stats, Accessed: April 7 2004. (Archived)

Nunan, T. (1996) Flexible Delivery – What is it and Why is it a part of the current educational debate?, In Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Perth, Western Australia http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/flex.learning/nunan_content.html.

Scribner, S. (1985) Vygotsky’s use of history, In Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian perspectives, Wertsch, J. V. (Ed) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 119-145.

This is the beginning of my thesis – the background, the set-up.  I don’t think there is much changed since I wrote this, but there is a broadening of issues.

{begin extract}

Interactions among learners and between learners and teachers are an important part of online learning environments.  Given that these interactions occur through computer mediation via text, which mediates both learning and the interaction among and between peers, with lecturers and the artefacts that comprise the online learning environment, they constitute important pedagogic practices.  The online learning environment represents a form of learning-related interaction now being widely adopted by educational institutions.  Yet its dialogical, and hence pedagogic, properties remain poorly understood and “fail to adequately address the broader learning needs of the university community” (Baskin, Barker and Woods, 2003, p192).  This is because its “pedagogical benefits” rely extensively on how well it allows dialogue between participants (Laurillard, 2002, p148).

{Digression}

When I wrote this, the majority of online forms were text based.  We now have video starting to replace text, but interactions almost always require text.  Presently, ‘interactions’ are less likely via video, mostly due to bandwidth issues and anyone who has tried to video chat should be familiar with the gross pixelation evident.  Perhaps with better broadband this will improve, but that is still a development to come.

Dialogue gets more treatment later, but it is central to interactions.  Laurillard maintained that learning was a conversation between participants (teachers, learners and others), and this is a central theme of my research – how we engage in dialogue to learn.  We rarely learn without it.

{End digression}

The principal argument in this dissertation is that current initiatives in online learning may fall short of the effective pedagogic practices required for learning in an online environment, because they are not organised and enacted effectively.  Many initiatives focus on technological solutions to pedagogic problems by providing standard interfaces – Learning Management Systems such as Blackboard, and processes (Kuriloff, 2001).  These interfaces are based on inter-networked communities utilising processes, which have been tested in other types of communities and for other purposes.  However, changes in communication processes and pedagogic properties brought about by electronic networking may not be fully accounted for, resulting in some mismatches between educational processes and the underlying technologies.

{Digression}

LMSs (Learning Management Systems) are almost ubiquitous.  Everywhere you go, there is some form of learning management system.  Each of these involves an ‘insidious pedagogy’ (Lane, 2009) – assumptions about learning are embedded in them and recognising them is sometimes difficult.  Shifting to better patterns is sometimes nigh on impossible because we do not even see the assumptions built in.

{End digression}

In essence, how online learning environments mediate interactions among agents (students and teachers) remains to be fully explored.  As advanced within this dissertation, this exploration is necessary because the mediation of interactions is shaped by the context of the interaction, as well as the person or persons engaged within that context.  Underlying this premise are questions of what these people are doing, how they are doing it and their purpose for doing it, that is, their activities, processes and intentions.  These aspects are not always considered or fully understood within an online environment.  As the uptake of the use of online learning arrangements increases in pace and scope within educational institutions, so too does the urgency for an effective set of pedagogic practices suited to their purposes and processes.

{Digression}

Any set of pedagogic practices will likely be unique to disciplines and very individualised among teachers.  But, there needs to be some way of working out what works without disadvantaging students too much.  Learning styles are currently a bit under attack (see the article) but their usefulness is more as a reflective process for students and teachers to consider how they learn.  Learning is not a simple activity by any stretch of the imagination.

{End digression}

Individuals’ learning is a complex, multi-layered, multiform activity (Watkins, 1996).  There exist a number of ways of facilitating that learning, including the traditional didactic lecture or direct face-to-face teaching interaction.  There are many critiques of the didactic style of presentation of information, because it positions the learners as being passive recipients of knowledge.  However, when defining a learning environment as an interactional forum, which permits and encourages the co-construction of knowledge, the traditional lecture stands apart as being potentially non-interactional.  Current understandings of learning, particularly those evolving from Vygotsky (1978), place a greater emphasis on interpersonal interaction, such as those between peers and between novices (e.g. students) and more expert partners (e.g. teachers) in the activities that are generative of extending individuals’ knowledge.  It follows that interactional forms of learning environments are becoming popular and are highlighted by moves to the organisation, administration and enactment of assisting learning through electronic technology, particularly electronically mediated distance learning for geographically isolated students.  Early forms of distance learning included the ‘correspondence model’ (Taylor and Swannell, 1997) parallel the lecture/tutorial form of campus-based learning interactions with their presentation of information in packages and activities corresponding to various parts of the curriculum.  Inventions of various technologies, for instance audio and video recordings and the telephone lead to different kinds of interactions that, in some ways, became distinct from didactic face-to-face teaching.  These constituted the first three generations of distance learning (correspondence, multimedia and telelearning).  According to Taylor and Swannell (1997: online), the current use of the Internet in supporting and directing learning represents the fourth generation of distance learning – the flexible learning model which is defined as combining the “benefits of high quality interactive multimedia, with access to an increasingly extensive range of teaching-learning resources and enhanced interactivity through computer mediated communication”.  Beginning with so-called ‘telelearning’ and following through to the flexible model, interaction between individuals became a central concern of educators when determining how to develop courses and assist learners.  Yet the widespread use of the Internet has resulted in changes to the interactions that are now quite remote from the didactic approach to supporting students’ learning face-to-face, and has thereby introduced new pedagogic practices and possibilities.

{End extract}

This introduction, for it is the introduction to my research, brings us to an important point: The Internet has changed things.  While teaching and learning is a focus of research, there are other areas of our interactions that have changed.  As I argued in ‘Reading in the Hyperconnected Information Era‘ (PDF), interactions within web spaces, where we make sense of information, are still being evaluated with many, many potential harms.  But the overwhelming sense I get from what we can do now is that the positive outweighs the negative.  As people learn more about interacting via electronic mediated environments, the more confident they become.  This is borne out by evidence from many of the people who argue against the proposed Internet filter, because their understanding of what they do is very deep.  Those in favour seem to not recognise the similarities, or appreciate the differences, between face-to-face and online interactions.  There is a seemingly negative perceptions of what online interactions allow.  For instance, if we consider Clive Hamilton’s description of the way a ‘normal’ boy child approaches the web, we come to believe it is a solitary, limited interactive processes.  This is hardly the reality of more experienced invididuals.

While thinking about this the other day, I wondered if there was a ‘oh, you’re new to the Internet? Start here!’ type environment.  I thought of it as a forum/wiki/blog space where documenting how to deal with different issues becomes a central focus – how does one know when the computer has a virus, what does one do to get rid of it, how does one tell if this site is the right one – a whole swag of learning processes for ‘normal’ boys (and of course girls, but CH seems to be more worried about boys).  These are the things that many of us have worked out over the last two decades.  As I mentioned in On being more interesting, it’s almost like a roller coaster – some of us love them, some of us don’t.  Some of us prefer a quiet corner of the amusement park, we know to avoid certain places.  But often that guidance comes from some more knowledgable individual.  That’s an interaction.  That’s learning.

References

Baskin, C., Barker, M. and Woods, P. (2003) Towards a smart community: Rethinking the strategic use of ICTs in teaching and learning, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19:2, pp 192-210, http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/baskin.html.

Kuriloff, P. C. (2001) One Size Will Not Fit All, The Technology Source, July/August, 2001, http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/default.asp?show=article&id=899.

Lane, L.M. (2009) Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems affect teaching, First Monday, Volume 14, Number 10 – 5 October 2009, http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2530/2303

Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking University Education: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies, Routledge Falmer, London.

Ruth, A. (2009). Reading in the Hyperconnected Information Era: Lessons from the Beijing Ticket Scam. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(March), 1-14. http://ajte.education.ecu.edu.au/issues/PDF/342/Ruth.pdf

Taylor, J. C. and Swannell, P. (1997) From outback to Internet: Crackling radio to virtual campus, in Invited address presented at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Telecom Interactive 97 Conference, Geneva, Switzerland http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/readings/lisbon.htm.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society – the development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Watkins, D. (1996) Learning theories and approaches to research: A cross-cultural perspective, in The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences, Watkins, D. and Biggs, J. (Eds) Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.