Teaching a Graduate Program Using Computer-mediated Conferencing Software1 :
|
Faye Wiesenberg and Susan Hutton
VOL. 11, No. 1, 83-100
This article summarizes the authors' experiences developing and teaching the first two computer-mediated courses in an innovative Master of Continuing Education program at The University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada. It presents background information on this graduate program and its first student group, a brief description of the course development process and the teaching methods used, and more detailed discussion of issues that arose in the delivery phase. The article concludes with the authors' reflections on their experiences as they relate to the benefits and challenges of computer-mediated instruction cited in the literature and their recommendations for building successful computer-mediated learning environments.
Cet article résume le travail des auteurs qui ont conçu et donné les deux premiers cours informatisés dans le cadre d'un programme novateur de maîtrise en éducation permanente, le Master of Continuing Education program, à la University of Calgary en Alberta, au Canada. On y trouve des renseignements sur ce programme de maîtrise et sur les premiers étudiants qui en ont fait partie, une courte description du travail d'élaboration du cours et de la méthode d'enseignement utilisée. L'article explique aussi les problèmes survenus pendant le déroulement du programme. En conclusion, il présente les réflexions des auteurs sur leur expérience, notamment sur les avantages et les défis de l'enseignement informatisé mentionnés dans le document, et leurs recommandations sur les milieux qu'ils jugent les plus propices à l'enseignement informatisé.
Although computer-mediated instruction is a relatively new mode of learning and teaching, several studies have already pointed to a number of benefits and challenges associated with teaching in this medium (Burge, 1994; Harasim, 1987; Hiltz, 1990, 1994; McCreary & Van Duren, 1987). Some of the key benefits cited are:
In contrast, some of the key challenges cited include:
Overall, the research concludes that learning results can be superior in the virtual classroom for well-motivated and well-prepared students who take advantage of the opportunities provided for increased interaction with professors and other classmates (Hiltz, 1990). Unfortunately, little has been written about instructing in a computer-mediated conferenced or “virtual” classroom. What is known, however, is that traditional competitive and teacher-centred approaches do not work well in this environment and that student-centred and “collaborative” ones do (Kaye, 1992). Although this article does not describe a formal research study, it does offer the authors’ reflections on their first experiences teaching graduate courses using a CMC software system called FirstClass. It is our intention here to add to the emerging body of knowledge on this issue and to develop a research program that will make a more formal contribution in the near future.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is the primary technology used to deliver the Master of Continuing Education (MCE) program at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada. The goal of this program is to produce graduates who have a broad and critical perspective of the field of “workplace learning,” an appreciation of the linkages between theory and practice, a range of intervention skills that they can bring to organizations as workplace learning specialists, and an understanding of themselves and others as individual, team, and organizational learners. Students typically come to this program with a background in organizational consulting, the training and development of human resources operations, line management positions within organizations, or adult education roles in government or non-government agencies. Students are normally supported in the role of student by their employer if they are not self-employed, and they usually access the CMC courses via their office computers or home work stations.
An important aspect of the MCE program is that students move through the program in cohort groups, providing a strong source of support throughout the two to three years of study required. This approach to distance study tends to increase student commitment to their program of study, thereby reducing dropout rates (Tinto, 1975). The two-year, six full course program begins with a three-week spring institute held at the university campus. This spring institute includes the first two core half courses in adult learning theory and practice from an individual perspective. The fall and winter terms then offer one core and one elective half course, both taught by CMC. The second year repeats the three-week spring institute format, offering two core half courses from a group/organizational and societal perspective, and the fall and winter terms offer the final four half courses by CMC. The final integrative project is two half courses that students take in their second year by CMC. The final oral comprehensive may be done either face-to-face or by distance, depending on the location and preference of the student.
The MCE was given final approval by the University of Calgary’s General Faculties Council in the spring of 1994 after five years of development and approval by the Faculty of Continuing Education (see Garrison & Kirby, 1995, for a full discussion of this process). It constitutes the first graduate program developed and delivered by this faculty as well as the first one offered by CMC. Because it can meet the educational needs of the MCE program and is affordable for the University and its students (Kirby & Garrison, 1995), this mode of delivery is considered one of the major future forms of graduate education for this university.
Computer-mediated communication occurs over a network of computers; e-mail being one common example of the use of computers to send and receive textual person-to-person communications. Computer conferencing can be described as a more complex version of e-mail that allows groups of people to share common textual messages and responses at any time by any member in a variety of ways. Distinguishing features of computer-mediated communication include: individuals can contribute to a conversation (or “conference”) whenever they want to (any time of day or night) from anywhere in the world (as long as they are communicating from a networked terminal); there is a permanent record of all contributions; conferences can be ongoing for as long (years) or short (days) as required; and conferences may or may not be supplemented by print materials or face-to-face meetings (Hiltz, 1994; Wells, 1995). The software system utilized here was FirstClass, chosen for its ability to provide a user-friendly format with features allowing instructors to structure and manage the course content easily. Both courses were designed as sets of conferences depicted on and accessed from students’ computer desktops, where visually relevant icons labelled according to the modules within each course were presented.
Within each module, specific topics for weekly discussion were contained in separate conferences. Files within each conference were created for sub-topics that arose and to organize better the volume of “conversations” that emerged over the four months of the course offering. Synchronous conversations between two or more persons could be set up through the “private chat” function, which supplemented an asynchronous one-to-one private mailbox feature. As well, “coffee” or “cafe” conferences were created to allow for non-course-related student discussions. In all conferences, small red flags appeared on the desktop indicating the presence of unread messages.
Essential information about the student group was compiled from the students’ MCE application files, face-to-face discussions during the spring institute about learning/career goals, extensive examination of the current research literature, and consultations with colleagues experienced in using the software system (FirstClass) to be used in the MCE courses (Ponting, 1995; Wells, 1995). Overall, it was determined that students came to these two CMC courses with little formal or in-depth knowledge of either course topic and that they had limited experience using computer-mediated communication systems like FirstClass.
This group of 23 students (18 female, 5 male; ranging from 21 to 50 years of age) were the first to experience the delivery of computer-mediated courses in the MCE program. A large majority had previous computer experience ranging from the use of software and e-mail systems to actual programming. One of the 23 indicated no previous computer experience, 20 considered themselves to be novices, and 2 classified themselves as expert users.
The authors’ review of instructional design literature revealed little in the way of research-based guidelines for developing computer-mediated courses, so they used their extensive experiences developing and delivering face-to-face courses. The two computer-mediated courses upon which this article is based, “Career Development in Organizational Settings” and “Leadership in Organizations,” were thus developed using well-accepted design methods for face-to-face and more traditional distance program delivery and adult learning principles (Barer-Stein & Draper, 1988; Brookfield, 1986; Caffarrella, 1994; Cook, 1991; Knowles, 1980; Mills, 1991; Schlossberg, Lynch, & Chickering 1991; Sheridan, 1989; Sheridan, Byrne, & Quina, 1989; Vella, 1994). Both instructors remained open to changing the design “in process” and solicited student feedback on how well the courses were meeting their learning needs throughout the delivery of the courses. The course development model included pre-session readings and orientation assignments, learning goals and objectives derived from both students and overall program goals, systematic weekly agendas, interactive assignments, learning journals, small group and/or diadic exercises, flexible assignments, and resource access assistance (in the form of a librarian available on-line).
The research literature on distance students emphasizes the importance of providing clearly defined learning objectives and a well-structured course delivery plan (Hiltz, 1994; Wells, 1995). The courses were intended to provide an introduction to both topics by assisting students to
Since this was the first graduate program ever offered by the Faculty of Continuing Education, as well as the first CMC courses, these additional objectives were critical:
Designing the instructional plan was the most challenging aspect of the course development process because neither author had previously taught in a “virtual classroom.” Both reviewed the sparse research literature available and approached the new experience expecting to have to modify aspects of each course as they progressed into the delivery phase. They consulted frequently, both during the design and delivery phases and involved other faculty in the MCE program.
One of the most useful resources available was Berge’s (1995) suggestions for facilitating computer-conferenced courses. He lists four distinct moderator functions that need to be filled in order for successful learning to take place: pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical. The authors attempted to fulfil the first three of these functions, while leaving the fourth to the Distance Education Centre’s technical staff.
The pedagogical role, which involves posing the right questions and probing for student responses, required the authors to act as educational facilitators, prompting students to produce responses that focused on critical concepts, principles, and skills. In the social role, which focuses on creating a friendly environment that encourages students to come together as a learning community, the authors developed a sense of class cohesiveness by having students work towards their learning goals in both small groups and in full class discussions. The managerial role, which includes setting the agenda, objectives, and procedural rules for interaction, required the authors to “control” the operational aspects of the course by imposing new rules as the need arose (such as a two-screen maximum for each contribution to reduce “information overload”) as well as to remind students of existing ones. Lastly, although the technical role (making the technology transparent so that students are not distracted from their learning) was officially assigned to the Distance Education Centre staff, the authors frequently found themselves in the position of joining in the search for technical solutions and acting as “advocates” for students who were not receiving adequate assistance from often beleaguered Distance Education staff.
The process of analyzing the information available on this issue generally followed the content comparative method described in Glaser and Strauss (1967) and approximated Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) open coding system. In the process of becoming skilful on-line moderators, the authors faced these three major issues:
The issue of how students/instructors and administrators dealt with the technological problems that arose over the term will be addressed here only in terms of how it affected the other issues because as the role of technical moderator was formally assigned to the Distance Education staff. The amount of time required to deliver a course using a CMC system was twice (for the elective course with 15 students) to three times (for the core course with 24 students) that of a regular face-to-face classroom environment. Increase was the result of the additional time needed to construct and read messages. Additional time to construct messages was necessary because the lack of nonverbal cues meant that messages had to be very carefully worded to avoid misinterpretation. In order to be clear and concise, both students and instructors required more time to reflect and edit their responses than they would normally take within a real classroom environment, where one has the opportunity of clearing up misunderstandings as they occur. In addition, a sense of vulnerability or exposure comes from posting the written word versus speaking. Students and instructors felt a heightened sensitivity when their written words stayed in the conference for many days for all to critique. For example, one student noted that “I was surprised by the anxiety that I experienced when preparing input, especially the first framing of a question . . . think it has to do with having your thought hang out there for a week.” Another student said “I am finally getting to the place where I am worrying less about what others think than about [my submissions].” Clearing up one misunderstanding on-line could take days of dialogue, and even then it might not necessarily result in as clear a communication as one ten-minute, face-to-face interaction. The resulting high volume of messages that students were required to read and respond to every week (which varied from a low of 3 in the elective course to 50 in the core course) required many hours of on-line time.
The sense of “connection” to and between students became a major preoccupation of those students who were not totally at ease with the CMC system. Some students in the Calgary area met in “learning groups” to address their need for face-to-face contact; others phoned the instructors or each other to establish connection through “voice contact.” Facilitating “interactive dialogue” was difficult given the built-in limitations of the computer medium. Students appeared to present their ideas well, but they had difficulty synthesizing the contributions of one or more other students by bringing together what had been said by others to form a new insight, question, or conclusion. They appeared to have insufficient ability to understand others’ comments and to remember what had already been said in order to synthesize learning. For example, many provided comments of this type: “a change I can suggest is that we need to search for still more ways to be reflective and interactive . . . more in-depth exploration of the topics which might make the contributions seem less disconnected from each other.” The elective course suffered the most from this lack of “connection” because it was open to students who were not in the MCE and therefore had not been at the spring institute. Four of the five non-MCE students dropped out of the elective course, leaving the remaining students feeling sad and guilty about their departure.
Student reactions to on-line assignments and learning activities in the courses varied a great deal. Out of necessity, most were designed to be completed independently of the other students or instructor, and those students who were not yet at the level of self-directedness required to be successful learning this way were uncomfortable with this challenge. Although many found that the medium gave them more time for critical reflection and analysis, others wanted more interaction with and guidance from the instructor. A number of those who found learning how to be critically reflective in isolation especially difficult met in face-to-face learning groups. Eventually, many learned from the on-line dialogue of students more advanced in this skill, but some were not able to adapt to the shift towards collaborative learning required over the time period of these courses.
How students, instructors, and administrators dealt with technical problems that arose over the semester affected their learning to a greater or lesser extent. Some students delved into the technical knowledge required and became technical resources for the rest, whereas others learned the bare minimum to survive. The number and nature of technical problems were somewhat overwhelming at times, as instructors and administrators learned on an “ad hoc” basis how to deal with them as they arose. These technical problems and the need to learn new rules and protocols forcommunicating on-line had an enormous initial impact on the teaching/learning process.
Issues directly related to the goal of ensuring that students’ learning was at the “graduate” level naturally fell into two categories: breadth of course content and depth of course coverage. Breadth of content was a challenge because both were broad survey courses that took a multi-disciplinary approach and so required that students be exposed to a wide variety of basic theoretical perspectives. The instructors had to balance the need to ensure that students acquired the solid foundation of theoretical knowledge required at the graduate level with the need not to overwhelm them with content (i.e., readings). This student cohort came into the MCE program with a wide variety of academic backgrounds, which meant that the required theoretical foundation for both courses had to be built from the “ground up.” Depth of coverage, necessary at the graduate level, suffered from a low level of “interactive dialogue” on-line. This was perceived as a potential problem by both instructors, and they designed the assignments and learning activities with this issue in mind. In hindsight, however, neither felt that they had completely succeeded in creating the depth of dialogue desired.
The information upon which this section is based was taken from mid- and final course evaluations; individual discussions between students and instructors throughout the semester; students’ learning journals submitted in both courses; and a group face-to-face discussion with 15 of the 24 students held three weeks prior to the end of the semester.
Student issues centred on becoming skilful “on-line” learners. They naturally fell into four categories:
Their frustration with the numerous technical problems encountered and the amount of time and effort required to resolve them is described as it affected their learning process.
Students saw the value of exploring each topic in relation to self as a consequence of completing the assignments and learning activities as the most important aspect of the courses, as is illustrated in these student comments: “I was most engaged in the course when examining my own career path in relation to the various [career] theories”; “That I am able to easily relate this academic leadership theory to a practical setting . . . at work I find myself thinking . . . that is an appropriate use of power . . . I sense true respect, nurturing leadership traits.” Students’ ability to synthesize their own learnings from the on-line discussions was facilitated by the existence of textual records in each conference. Their concern about the perceived lack of “real” communication amongst classmates, particularly between non-MCE students and full-time MCE students, was evidenced in repeated statements about feeling that messages were “contrived” or “not authentic” as well as in questions about how the dropout of four of the five non-MCE students could have been prevented with better support from both classmates and instructor. This theme is typified in the common question “What is everyone thinking out there?” and in one student’s rather telling comment that she felt “all dressed up with nowhere to go” when she sent her painstakingly crafted messages to her classmates and waited days for a response. Related to this issue was a common feeling of “imposter syndrome” (Brookfield, 1986) or anxiety over the value of one’s individual contributions, which, once sent, were out there in stark print for everyone to examine and judge. On the other hand, the students expressed a great deal of appreciation for the frequent and immediate feedback that this medium allowed them to receive from both classmates and instructors.
The struggle of students to articulate/create their own “theory-in-use,” a key objective of each course, was accompanied by both anxiety (“Am I intelligent enough to do this?”) and excitement (“The theory came alive for me when I had to think about what I agreed/disagreed with”). Related to this issue was the mental stretch required to become critical readers of the research literature, another key goal of both courses. The acquisition of critical reflection skills is challenging in a face-to-face environment; a virtual classroom’s asynchronous communication made it more difficult. It seemed to “all come together” in the end for many, however. For example, students indicated in final evaluations that “I felt most engaged in what was happening when I was writing the final paper as it caused me to go back into the readings with a purpose and to read other materials and try to draw out conclusions.” Another student said “completing my final paper . . . assisted me in reviewing my learning to date and consolidated ideas.”
The students’ appreciation for the “democratization” of the CMC classroom was evident since those who tended to hang back in traditional classrooms mentioned that they felt both that they had the freedom to participate as fully as their more “verbose” classmates and that their contributions were valued in an equal level. This feeling seemed to be a function of students being able to take more time to reflect before responding since the CMC environment allowed them to take hours or days to reply to messages/questions. One of the most valuable aspects of this “democratic” environment was the comfort level that many felt in taking on the role of “moderator” to lead discussions, which is not common in first-year graduate face-to-face classes. Taking on the role of moderator was also cited as one of the most engaging aspects of the courses, appreciated as “the best way to really get to know the theory!”
The frustration experienced with the numerous technical problems and the amount of time and effort required to resolve them was par-ticularly evident in the first few weeks of the courses, but it continued throughout the semester. Individual student responses to this issue varied, and while some perceived these problems as challenges, many perceived them to be barriers.
Issues centred on achieving graduate level course work fell into four categories
Students’ struggle to understand different and broader definitions of “career development” and “leadership” concepts was a direct reflection of their entry level of knowledge in both topics. This matched the authors’ information on students collected prior to the semester starting.
Their concern with the amount of time it took them to give sufficient thought to each course was reflected in the constant struggle to participate in all of the on-line conversations, which meant they had to do all of the readings required to take part in these conversations and complete all of the course assignments on time. This struggle conflicted with competing roles at home and work (two students became parents for the first time, one student’s parent became gravely ill, and several students acquired major extra work tasks over the course of the semester). For the 10 students who were taking both courses, the endeavour became too much at times, and three required assignment extensions. Their surprise about the comp-lementarity between the two courses and their relevance to their “back home” roles within their own organizations reflected their newness to the central focus of “workplace learning” and to the major theoretical foundations of this graduate program. All students expressed a great dealof appreciation for the courses in terms of both content and structure; they liked the instructional plan, that is, the movement from a personal examination of theory in relation to self to relating the theory to their own organizational settings, and they particularly liked the way that both courses focused on the application of theory to practice in the assignments and learning activities.
One of the more surprising discoveries for many students was the importance of self-direction in the successful management of a CMC (let alone a graduate level) course. Students discovered that they must interact with the knowledge that they were attempting to learn in order to make progress towards their learning goals. Ultimately, how successfully they were able to utilize the technology to communicate with the instructor and with each other and to take responsibility for their own learning affected their ability to learn and to integrate the course materials into their workplace. Overall, course end evaluations indicated that the objectives had been met. Ninety-seven percent of the core course students rated the course content and organization as “good,” “very good,” or “excellent,” while 80% in the elective course students’ did so; 98.7% of the core course students rated the instructor as “good,” “very good,” or “excellent,” while 77% of the elective students’ did so; and 99.2% of the core course students rated the assignments and student evaluation system as “good,” “very good,” or “excellent,” while 80% of the elective students did so.
Upon reflection and discussion with colleagues, the authors concluded that they both agree and disagree with the current research on CMC; their experiences with CMC did not always coincide with the oft-cited benefits and challenges of teaching in this medium described in the introduction of this article.
Both instructors set up specific “on-line office hours,” but they found themselves checking their electronic mailboxes and various course conferences more frequently than initially intended. The instructor of the core course spent an average of two hours an evening at home sending and responding to messages and assignments because of the sheer volume of communications with 24 students on-line. The non-synchronous nature of communication was often experienced as beneficial by instructors and students alike as they could participate when it was convenient to their work and family schedules. The core instructor participated primarily in one-hour blocks at various times in the evenings and on the weekends, and the elective course instructor participated in two- to four-hour blocks, primarily during weekdays. Not all students took advantage of the convenience afforded by the non-synchronous nature of communication; however, those who did often made comments such as “despite occasional technical difficulties, the system is available as per my schedule” and “[I like] the flexibility of working on it when its convenient.” Although daily contact with students was initially necessary to provide on-line assistance with technical problems and encouragement to frustrated and confused students, eventually it became one method of fostering the sense of “connection” between students and instructors, and both instructors (along with several students) became “on-line junkies.”
The second cited benefit of increased interactive dialogue between/amongst students and instructors was not as great as hoped, although this aspect was difficult to assess objectively because both courses were first time offerings. On the contrary, the instructors were disappointed with the level of the interactive dialogue because they had carefully structured assignments and learning activities with this aspect of the medium in mind. There was a higher level of on-line dialogue in the core course than in the elective course, which may have been at least partially the result of all students in the core course having met face-to-face in the spring institute. The lower level of on-line dialogue may have also been partly because of an “imposter syndrome” that emerged for the students who had not met any of their on-line classmates. These factors and the normal feelings of inadequacy and isolation common to many first-year graduate students, exacerbated by the medium, may all have contributed to the lower level of on-line dialogue in the elective course. As well, students’ lack of orientation to the software program left them, in hindsight, insufficiently prepared for a CMC environment. The amount of interactive dialogue between students and instructors was, however, quite high as many students took advantage of the ease of accessing instructors through CMC to spend considerable time communicating through both the private mailbox and the chat functions throughout the semester. It will be interesting to observe in future CMC courses if there are differences in overall learning and attitude towards this aspect of the program between those students who learned to use the medium effectively early in the program and those who did not.
In retrospect, the quality of learning did not appear to suffer from the lower than expected level of interactive dialogue; the overall quality of submitted assignments compared favourably to first-year graduate level work. Many students completed the assignments in small groups, either face-to-face or on-line, and this team approach undoubtedly affected the quality of the term work. It is also possible that the lower level of on-line interactive dialogue in the elective course was affected by this behind the scenes “real” dialogue. Perhaps the on-line dialogue would have been higher if students had not had the option of more familiar and comfortable face-to- face interaction. The nature of the on-line discussion/dialogue was positive for many; it allowed them increased “time to think” and edit their responses before sending them, a point made often in the evaluation data. For example, one student stated “I am usually rather quiet in formal classroom settings tending to listen more to others’ comments rather than offer my own as I like to reflect on my thoughts prior to announcing them. This medium allows me the time to reflect before commenting and so I find it easier to comment than I might in a classroom setting.” Students’ expressed attitude toward the CMC environment, although quite mixed at midpoint in the semester (many disliked the lack of human contact), became noticeably more positive towards the end of the semester when many expressed appreciation for the “democratizing” effect that it had on the discussions.
Both students and instructors appreciated the written record of responses though for quite different reasons; whereas students appreciated the ability to review previous discussions, instructors appreciated the ability to check participation levels on the various on-line discussions. Students were also able easily to access other resources, such as a librarian dedicated to the program, to conduct literature searches on-line, and to use the university library’s entire on-line catalogue.
A key challenge of teaching in CMC in the authors’ experience certainly was the technical difficulties associated with piloting a new CMC software package as well as shepherding a student group largely unfamiliar with any CMC learning environment through their first semester of learning with this system. Secondly, the amount of time required to do justice to a CMC course was a major frustration and source of conflict for students (especially those who took both classes at once) and instructors (especially for the core course instructor who had 24 students). Lastly, learning to communicate without the benefit of visual cues proved very challenging for students and instructors not used to the intricacies of on-line jargon/etiquette. Through true interactive dialogue, both instructors and students learned a great deal about the effect that individual communication styles have on-line and about how to modify aspects of these styles to accommodate the lack of visual cues. Keeping track of conversations on-line also often meant reviewing previously posted messages, another very time-consuming and often tedious activity. Another challenge was in the formatting and grammar of submissions. In order to keep up with the on-line dialogue, students often did not follow the basic rules of writing, such as use of paragraphs, capitalization, and proper punctuation. Although this was a mild frustration for most, a few students expressed their annoyance with comments such as “How poorly some people write! At the risk of being the kettle calling the pot black, I am dismayed!” and “I am appalled by those people who submit pieces with little attention to capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and proof reading. . . . I don’t have time to decipher!”
Overall, the authors found that the primary differences between teaching on-line and face-to-face were reflected in shifts in the roles of teacher and student towards a more student-centred, collaborative, and egalitarian learning environment. Berge (1995) talks about the following shifts in the student and teacher roles: as the student moves from passive receptacle to self-motivated managers of their own learning, teachers move from oracle and lecturer to consultant, guide, and resource provider; as students move from competers for a limited amount of marks, teachers move towards grading for collaborative projects and creating a “learning team” both inside and outside of the classroom; as students acquire learning strategies, teachers acquire strategies that address diverse learning styles. The end result is the breaking down of the teacher-student hierarchy and the significant expansion of student access to learning resources.
From their experiences piloting two CMC courses within the context of an innovative graduate program, the authors offer suggestions for other first time CMC teachers. Using the four categories of moderating functions as a basic framework (Berge, 1995), these are some of the things that we intend to do differently next time.
In addition to facilitating the learning process by structuring learning goals, assignments, and on-line discussions, instructors must assist students to become self-directed by creating a community of learners who depend on themselves and each other (as opposed to the teacher) for ideas, information, and feedback. If students are to succeed in a CMC learning environment, they must learn how to learn (both individually and collaboratively), which includes critically reflecting on their own and others’ contributions. Next time, students will be required to cite other students’ contributions, their postings to subconferences, and off-line reading assignments.
Instructors must learn how to create an inclusive learning environment that encourages full participation by all students and how to design and teach collaboratively. This attitude of collaboration needs to start prior to the learning event by instructors finding out about students’ learning needs and preferences in the initial planning phases of course design. Instructors must appreciate that on-line groups also go through stages and change as a course proceeds, and they must learn how to monitor this process. Continually questioning students on their learning and comfort levels, as well as asking directly for feedback about the course itself, is critical for the development of an environment where students will feel safe in contributing and respected for their ideas. The collaboration process needs to extend into the evaluation phase of course development, when information about what worked and did not work to facilitate the learning process is gathered from learners and instructors. Next time, the authors will send more messages to students’ private mailboxes, affirming their contributions as well as providing them with more individual feedback. They will use students’ names more in full class discussions and encourage them to do the same with each other.
Instructors need to create and maintain an inclusive learning environment where all students feel valued for their contributions in the teaching/learning process. To do so, they must manage the learning process in a number of ways, ranging from structuring and restructuring the various discussions to prompting students to participate (as well as finding the “right” balance of participation themselves), clarifying topics and expectations, establishing guidelines for on-line contributions, and offering strategies for dealing with the danger of “message overload” throughout the course. Much of this guidance can be done effectively through instructor modelling. Next time, the authors will provide more “information organizing” strategies, such as cutting and pasting key responses into separate topic conferences for future references.
Expert technical support is absolutely critical before the computer-mediated course begins (to allow students to build key technical skills), during the course (to deal with inevitable emergencies as they arise and continue to build the typically very steep learning curve), and after it ends (to allow for “off hours” assistance as well as preparation for the next learning event). Because many distance students work on their courses after regular working hours, technical support must be available at off hours, preferably late into the evening and during weekends. Next time, the authors plan to incorporate other complementary distance technologies into their courses, such as audio and video conferencing, to compensate for the lack of face-to-face interaction that many adult students find essential to the learning process.
In the process of teaching the first two computer-mediated courses in an innovative graduate program in continuing education, a number of issues arose for both instructors and students that resulted in valuable new learning about how to teach in this medium. The most important of these was an appreciation of the critical importance of fulfilling a number of different facilitator roles that act together to enhance the quality of student on-line dialogue and learning.
The authors found that the particular benefits and challenges that they faced were both similar to, and different from, those faced in regular classroom teaching. The most striking differences between face-to-face and CMC classrooms were the technical challenges, the increased time required to process written messages, and the time to develop in-depth dialogue (that is, the skills of synthesizing the contributions of other classmates to bring forward new insights/conclusions within a creative and collaborative learning environment).
The creation of a collaborative “learning community,” although not unique to the successful CMC classroom, does require somewhat different teaching strategies than those used in face-to-face classrooms. The concept of “learning community” began to emerge in adult education with Malcolm Knowles’s (1980) introduction of the concept of learning climate and the idea that environment affects learning. Writings and research on the building of “learning communities” on-line have just begun to appear in adult education literature; they represent the unusual but inevitable partnership of computer technology and adult education. Although some express strong reservations about the viability of this “pairing,” others are very enthusiastic about its creative potential. The authors of this article believe that in order for this partnership to work, there needs to be tremendous investment and support given to it by all stakeholders; administrators, technical support staff, instructors, and students.
The authors look forward to future applied research potential that the topic of facilitating CMC will provide as they gain more experience and expertise in building successful CMC learning environments.
Faye Wiesenberg
Faculty of Continuing Education
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4
Barer-Stein, T., & Draper, J. (1988). The craft of teaching adults. Toronto: O.I.S.E.
Berge, Z. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burge, E. (1994). Learning in computer conferenced context: The learners’ perspective. Journal of Distance Education, IX(1), 19-43.
Caffarella, R. S. (1994). Planning programs for adults learners; A practical guide for educators, trainers and staff developers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cook, L. (1991). Cooperative learning: A successful college teaching strategy. Innovative Higher Education, 16(1), 27-39.
Garrison, D. R., & Kirby, D. (1995). Developing a master of continuing education degree program: The way it was! Canadian Journal of Continuing Education, 21(2), 7-20.
Gerein, C. (1995). Master of continuing education student resource package. Calgary, AB: The University of Calgary, Faculty of Continuing Education.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 117-135.
Hiltz, S. R. (1990). Evaluating the virtual classroom. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 133-184). New York: Praeger.
Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kaye, A. R. (1992). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. London: Spring-Verlag.
Kirby, D. M., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Computer conferencing in higher education: Issues of communication and implementation. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lifelong Learning and Extension at Educational Universities, Hokkaido, Japan.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCreary, E. K., & Van Duren, J. (1987). Educational applications of computer conferencing. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 153-166.
Mills, B. (1991). Enhancing adult learning through cooperative small groups. Continuing Higher Education Review, 55(3), 144-152.
Ponting, A. (1995, Spring Semester). Videoconference workshop on teaching using FirstClass software. Calgary, AB: The University of Calgary, Distance Education Centre.
Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1991). Improving higher education environments for adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sheridan, J., Bryne, A., & Quina, K. (1989). Collaborative learning: Notes from the field. College Teaching, 37(2), 49-53.
Sheridan, J. (1989). Rethinking androgogy: The case for collaborative learning in continuing higher education. Continuing Higher Education, 37(2), 2-6.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Vella, J. (1994). Learning to listen, learning to teach: The power of dialogue in educating adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wells, R. (1995, Winter Semester). Workshop on teaching by computer mediated conferencing. Calgary, AB: The University of Calgary, Faculty of Continuing Education.
1. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Adult Continuing Education at Kansas City in November, 1995.
Faye P. Wiesenberg (B.A., B.Ed., M.Ed., Ph.D.) is currently an Assistant Professor, Program Director (Certificate in Career Development), and Team Leader (Adult Education/Lifestyles Team) in the Faculty of Continuing Education at the University of Calgary. Her current research interests include computer-based career service delivery, adult career development and transition, designing instruction for adult learners, and the use of computer-mediated communication in the design process.
Susan Hutton is Associate Dean and Director of the Masters of Continuing Education: Workplace Learning (MCE) in the Faculty of Continuing Education at the University of Calgary. Her research interests include leadership communication, computer-mediated communication, cross-cultural and cross-gender communication, gender and adult education, women entrepreneurs, and program design and evaluation including CMC curriculum.
ISSN: 0830-0445