Facilitating Adult Learning Through Computer-Mediated Distance Education |
This article is a case study of two distance education graduate courses offered by means of computer-mediated communication. The article describes the structure of the courses followed by an analysis of student participation, satisfaction, and achievement. In addition, the article discusses the effectiveness of the facilitation techniques used.
In the courses, student reading and writing of notes was extensive. It appears that students logged in and read the conference at least once a week, and many students logged into the conference once a day. The mean number of notes authored by each student in 1986 was 16.3 and the mean for 1987 was 11.8.
Two facilitation techniques were examined. In joint writing assignments several patterns emerged. A major strategy was to send drafts of the paper back and forth between students. One student would write a draft of a section and the second student would edit the work, adding points and changing wording as appropriate. The draft was then sent back to the first student for another round. The second strategy was to be on-line at the same time. There were approximately twice as many notes entered on the same day as entered on different days.
Students reported satisfaction with the on-line courses and demonstrated effective use of the technology.
Cet article est une étude de cas de deux cours à distance de niveau supérieur offert au moyen de la télématique. L'article débute par une description de la structure de ces cours. Il se poursuit par une analyse faisant état de la participation des étudiants, de leur satisfaction et de leurs résultats. L'article commente, de surcroît, l'efficacité des techniques de facilitation utilisées.
Durant les cours, les étudiants participèrent considérablement à la rédaction des notes aussi bien qu'à leur consultation. Il apparaît que les étudiants entrèrent en communication et lurent les conférences au moins une fois par semaine; plusieurs les lurent même une fois par jour. Le nombre moyen de notes produites par chaque étudiant fut de 16.3 en 1986 et de 11.8 en 1987.
Deux techniques de facilitation furent examinées. En ce qui concerne les travaux écrits en collaboration, plusieurs similarités d'exécution furent découvertes. Une des stratégies principales consista à procéder à l'échange des brouillons. Un étudiant ébauchait une section et un second retravaillait ce brouillon, ajoutant des arguments et modifiant la formulation le cas échéant. Le brouillon était alors retourné au premier étudiant pour être retravaillé. La deuxième stratégie consistait à se mettre en ligne en même temps. Il y eut approximativement deux fois plus de notes inscrites pendant la même journée que pendant des journées différentes.
Les étudiants exprimèrent leur satisfaction au sujet de ce genre de cours et se révélèrent capables d'employer efficacement la technologie.
Distance education is an important educational phenomenon in higher education in Canada as well as a number of other countries. Prior to the availability of computer-mediated communication, many distance education courses were structured as a set of readings and assignments. The student completed the assignments and returned them to the instructor for comment. Often, the grade for the course was based on an examination. This predominant pattern is essentially serial in its orientation. The instructor provides the structure of the course. The student reads the material and completes assignments, and the instructor provides feedback. If the interactions are all through the mail, the feedback on each assignment can be delayed for several weeks.
In recent years distance education designers have attempted to enrich courses by providing audio or video tapes, telephone contact between student and instructor, or organizing students in groups and conducting discussions through telelecture equipment. Nevertheless, the predominant participation pattern is one-to-one interaction between the instructor and each individual student. Student-to-student interaction in distance education is still rare. It happens in teleconferencing but only at predetermined times and at the discretion of the instructor.
The use of computer-mediated communication for distance education is a relatively new phenomenon. This medium allows for rapid communication among students as well as between the student and the instructor. Thus, for the first time, distance education courses can duplicate the seminar discussions found in advanced classes on campus. In addition, because the methodology does not depend on a number of students being in the same location at the same time, the distance education course can be offered to students at widely different geographical locations.
Computer-mediated communication refers to the use of a network of micro-computers linked to a central host computer by a variety of means including local networks, telephone lines, or special data networks such as DATAPAC in Canada. Using special conferencing programs on the host computer, individuals can leave messages for other students or the instructor to read, read messages left by others, send private notes, or write and edit cooperative papers. Although computer-mediated communication includes both electronic mail programs as well as computer conferencing programs, the courses described in this article used a computer conferencing program called PARTICIPATE (Participation Systems, 1985) on the Vax computers at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Research into the effects of computer-mediated communication on adult learning is still in its infancy. Although computer-mediated communication has been available since the middle of the last decade, early research focussed primarily on the effects of technical features or on the effects of computer- mediated communication on social interactions in business settings (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978; Hiltz, Turoff, & Johnson, 1981; Hiltz, 1986; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984).
There have been a number of articles exploring the use of computer-mediated communication for distance education (Bacsich, 1984; Cross, 1983; Davie, 1987; Davie & Palmer, 1984; Davis & Marlowe, 1984; Eldridge, 1982; Harasim, 1986; 1987; Kaye, 1987; Levinson, 1988; Mason, 1988; Quinn, Mehan, Levin, & Black, 1983; and Schroeder, 1981). However the exploration of different facilitation techniques is much less developed.
Bååth (1982) reports on the results of some preliminary research in the use of computers compared to traditional correspondence study courses. He found that students interacting with on-line computers in comparison with traditional correspondence study students
Evaluations of the on-line instruction were gathered from a total of 315 students. The respondents included students in the five courses as well as some enrolled in other on-line courses. Respondents reported that students believed that the on-line courses
In addition, there are some case study reports such as those by Harasim (1986, 1987) and Davie (1987). At this stage of development it can be argued that we need a further base of case studies that report the structure of attempts to facilitate adult learning and that report descriptive data on the effects of those facilitative efforts. Although case studies often suffer from small numbers of participants and non- representative samples, they are ideally suited for in-depth explorations of the perceived effects of differing educational strategies. Effects suggested by case studies need to be further explored in large scale studies such as the Hiltz study reported above. The case study, however, is a good place to start and allows educational planners to share preliminary exploration.
This article reports the experience of offering a graduate level distance education course in 1986 and 1987 through computer-mediated communication. The article reports the structure of the courses and provides descriptive data on the course results.
In the past two years, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education has been experimenting with computer-mediated communication as a form of distance education. The two offerings of the course examined in this paper were designed to explore differing perspectives on community development as a type of non-formal adult education. They were offered through the Department of Adult Education and were taught by the author, one of the senior faculty of that department.
The basic format of the 13 week courses was for the class to meet together twice: once at the beginning and once at the end of the course. The first meeting in each course was designed to introduce the course to the students, to deliver course materials, and to train students to use the PARTICIPATE computer conferencing system and the DATAPAC network. In addition to reference materials regarding the PARTICIPATE system, students were given course notes and texts for the course at this first meeting.
The only communication in the courses was through the means of the PARTICIPATE System. There were no telephone, mail, or telelecture contacts. During the courses, students were expected to read course texts and articles, to discuss their ideas in an on-line conference, and to write two short essays and a final essay. The two short essays were sent to the instructor on-line and, with the permission of the students, made available for other students to read. The basic ideas in the structuring of these courses are presented in Davie and Palmer (1984).
The students were responsible for providing their own microcomputers or terminals and a modem for connecting their micros to the phone lines. The Institute made provisions for the use of a data network called DATAPAC. The use of this network allowed students to call a local number and be connected to the mainframe computer at the Institute. The DATAPAC charges were collected in a pool for the courses and divided equally among the students. Although there were few difficulties in using the PARTICIPATE system, there were a few difficulties with individuals learning to use their own micros and communication software. These tended to be overcome in the first week or so of the courses, with help from the other students and the instructors.
Discussions conducted by computer-mediated communication are analogous to discussions held face-to-face. Each student can read the contributions of other students or the instructor and make comments as seem appropriate. There are some important differences, however. In the classroom, students who are able to think and formulate their responses quickly are advantaged as they can jump in when there is pause in the discussion. Slower students are not able to enter the conversation as quickly and contribute less frequently. In the computer conference, one can read the other contributions, consult reference materials, take time to compose a response, and enter the response without the pressure of the on-going discussion. Thus, there is an equity of access that is often missing in the face-to-face discussion. On the other hand, effectiveness in this medium might well be linked to a student's ability to write well. The expectation of written effectiveness does not seem to be much of a problem in a graduate level course. Nevertheless, it might well contribute to a differential response rate by students who feel that their writing skills are more or less adequate than those of their colleagues.
In addition to the conference discussion, the computer conference can be used to transmit written assignments. This facility allows for rapid response from the instructor. In addition, assignments can be made available to other students to read. This is analogous to the seminar where students read their papers to one another, or where papers are duplicated for others to read. In this way, the individual analyses can be discussed and become an important part of the content of the course. Again, the medium places a premium on thoughtful contributions rather than quick, "off-the-cuff" responses.
Computer conferencing also enabled students to work together to create joint papers. This article reports two different, but similar forms of working together. In the first case, the students were paired. Each pair was asked to produce a joint paper outlining their values and beliefs about community development and indicating where their ideas converged or diverged from each other's.
In the second case, students were divided into small groups of four to five members. Each group was asked to analyze a case study and present the analysis on-line for the other students in the course to read.
At the end of the courses, a final face-to-face meeting was held to discuss the course experience. These meetings were tape-recorded and the student discussion was used to understand the impact of computer-mediated communication on learning.
One of the advantages of a computer conference is that the medium provides a complete transcript of course interactions. Not only is the main discussion reproduced for further analysis, but each of the small groups is available. Several different analyses have been made of the transcripts.
The main conference was analyzed for
The learning partner conferences and small group conferences were analyzed for
In particular, it was interesting to note when students were simultaneously on-line compared to when they operated in an asynchronous mode.
There are two kinds of participation in any educational experience. In the classroom, the student participates both when contributing directly to the discussion and by active listening. Similarly, in the computer conference courses we can analyze participation either through an analysis of transcripts to determine the number and kinds of written notes, or we can look at the records to see when students log on and read the conference notes.
Table 1
Participation Statistics for 1986 and 1987
| Category | 1986 |
1987 |
| Number of participants | 11 | 15 |
| Mean number of participants logged on each week | 9.4 | 14.3 |
| Mean number of notes in main conference | 19.2 | 18.1 |
| Mean number of notes in main conference authored by each student | 16.3 | 11.8 |
In both the 1986 and 1987 courses, student reading of notes was quite active. In most cases, it appears that students logged on and read the conference at least once a week, and many students logged onto the conference once a day. In the 1986 course, computer records indicate that students spent about three hours a week logged on to the conference.
There were 11 participants in the 1986 course, 10 of whom had little prior experience with computers, and by the end of the first week of the course, 6 of the 11 participants had successfully connected with the conference. Four additional students joined the following week, and the final participant logged on by the third week. The mean number of participants who signed on each week was 9.4, with a range of 6 in the first week to 11 for five of the twelve weeks of the course. The average number of notes for each week of the first course was 19.2. The average number of notes authored by each student was 16.3, ranging from 0 to 31 notes.
The 1987 course originally had 16 students. In the fourth week, 1 of the students dropped out of the course, leaving 15 students. Of these, 14 had logged on during the first week and all had logged on by the end of the second week. Most students logged on at least once a week, with an average "attendance" of 14.3.
Even though the course structure was different in the 1987 course, in that there was a good deal more activity required in the learning partnerships and in the small groups, the mean number of notes each week in the main discussion was 18.1. This was quite similar to the mean for the 1986 course. In 1987, the average number of notes authored by each student was 11.8, with a range of 6 to 27 notes.
In computer-mediated communication instruction, the teacher or instructor plays an important set of roles. Not only does she or he structure the experience, but the instructor also provides an important role model with his or her own contributions to the conversation. The instructor encourages participation, demonstrates appropriate responses, summarizes the discussion from time to time, and redirects the attention of the group when it gets off track. In the two courses, the instructor was the largest contributor of notes, writing between three and four times as many notes as the students. Nevertheless, the instructor in these two courses authored only 22% and 20% of the total notes. This is a much lower percentage of the "air time" than is typical in a face-to-face group.
In the 1986 course, the students were asked to write a small essay individually concerning their views of community development. These individual assignments were transmitted to the instructor and placed on-line for the other students to read. The second assignment was a cooperative writing assignment. The students were divided into small groups and each group was asked to choose a case study from one of the texts and to write an analysis of the case using the theoretical material in the course.
In the 1987 course, two assignments were given that required cooperative writing by the students. In the first assignment, students were paired into learning partnerships and asked to write a joint paper. These learning partners replaced the individual assignments in the 1986 course. There originally were eight pairs, but one pair was dissolved when a student dropped out of the course. Of the seven remaining pairs, five were active in writing the assignment on-line. Although the remaining two pairs completed the assignment, they were not as active on-line. Both of these inactive pairs lived together. Thus, they completed the assignment off-line and sent the assignment as a complete piece. Analyzing the five on-line partnerships, it was found that they required a mean of 28.2 notes to complete the assignment.
The second assignment in the 1987 course was the same as that for the 1986 course. The students were divided into small groups and each group was required to write an analysis of a community development case study. The small groups required an average of 71.3 notes to complete the assignment, with a range of 69 to 76 notes. In the small group assignments, the students authored a mean of 14.3 notes, with a range of 1 to 24 notes. Two students dropped out of the small groups after authoring 1-3 notes. Without these students, the range was from 7-24 notes. The students who dropped out of the small group lived together and, here again, completed the assignment off-line and sent the assignment as a complete piece.
The analysis of the transcripts of the main conference and the learning partnerships indicated a number of interesting patterns. First, it should be noted that PARTICIPATE is an asynchronous system. Except for a primitive facility for sending one line notes to other participants who are concurrently logged on to the system, all notes are written and posted to the conferences, where they may be read at some later time by other participants.
Nevertheless, notes tended to cluster on certain days. It was as if the participants tended to like immediate feedback and worked on the computer at the same time. By examining the time stamp on pairs of notes, one can count the number of notes sent on the same day in comparison with the number of notes sent on different days. All notes sent on the same day as the preceding note were coded as synchronous, whereas notes sent on a different day than the preceding note were marked as asynchronous. This coding stretches the definition of synchronous, but it seems to reflect the orientation of the students, who commented that they felt like they were working together.
In the main conference, there were about twice as many synchronous notes as asynchronous notes. In the five active learning partnerships, the synchronous rate was even higher. The mean ratio of synchronous to asynchronous notes was 23.4 to 8.4 or about three to one. In the small groups the mean ratio of synchronous to asynchronous notes was 47.0 to 26.0 or about two to one. Clearly, one of the successful strategies for writing a paper together was to be on-line at (approximately) the same time on the same day.
One of the problems in a classroom discussion is getting the participants to build on one another's comments. Too often, contributions tend to be disjointed. The experience in the computer conference was quite different. Students tend to refer directly to other participant's notes. In the 1987 course, a count was made of the notes that specifically referred to one another's notes. Out of a total of 223 notes, 164 or 73.5% of the notes referred specifically to other notes.
Except for notes about course management, most of the discussion in the main conference dealt directly with the course topics. A count of notes relating directly to course readings showed that approximately 15% of the notes referred specifically to an author in the assigned readings. This statistic understates the case, as a great number of notes referred in a general way to course readings, but were not counted for this analysis.
The students in both the 1986 and 1987 courses were very helpful to one another in suggesting hints for using the system. In both courses, a specific HELP conference was set up and was very active. In addition, approximately 3% of the general notes were directed toward suggestions on how to use specific features of the system.
In these small courses it was difficult to quantify student learning and compare that learning with courses offered in other modes. Although quantitative comparisons are not possible, the dropout rate in these two courses appeared to be as low or lower than the dropout rates in other off-campus courses. The instructor's impression was that these students accomplished at least as much as graduate students in similar courses conducted face-to-face. The results in the courses were very impressive. The students were able to integrate the course readings very well and apply their learning to actual case studies. The papers were well-written and were carefully related to the material of the course. The grades were similar or superior to those for similar courses offered face-to-face.
The instructor felt that, in many ways, student performance was superior to similar face-to-face courses. In particular, it was observed that these students paid closer attention to course materials, had discussed the materials in more depth, and had clearly identified important issues and developed individual positions related to these issues. Given the extensive literature available on the topic, attention to the literature was an important goal of the course.
The joint papers in the second course seemed superior to the individual papers written on the same topic prepared for the first course. It seems that the necessity of discussing the topic in-depth with one's learning partner helped to identify important issues to a greater extent than writing alone.
One of the difficulties with using small groups in a course is that one or more groups may have difficulty with interpersonal problems and end up letting one person do most of the work. Because the instructor could view the complete transcripts of five of the seven learning partnerships, it was clear that both partners contributed substantially to the effort. The learning partnerships were judged as highly successful as an instructional technique in the 1987 course.
During both courses, each of the small groups succeeded in producing a good-to-excellent analysis of a case study. Although there was more variation in the rate of participation than in the pairs, each student volunteered for a role in the production of the paper and contributed to the final effort. Out of seven small groups in the two courses, only one experienced difficulty with the assignment. The small group papers demonstrated mastery of the content, and the ability for the whole group to see the developing paper allowed for good discussion on various points. The quality of the writing was superior to small group efforts working face-to-face, where typically there is only enough time for one student to be responsible for the final product.
Data on student satisfaction was collected in a number of ways for both the 1986 and 1987 courses. Students in both courses were asked to respond to Likert scales on a number of issues. Because there were so few students in each course, the Likert scales were not analyzed statistically. Satisfaction was high in both courses - with both the structure of the course and the interaction with the instructor.
At the end of the courses discussions were conducted about the experience and a number of themes emerged. First, students commented quite positively on the convenience of computer-mediated communication. They commented specifically on being able to work during times that were most appropriate to them in that they had energy or uninterrupted time to concentrate.
As one student said, when commenting on what she got out of the course,
I feel that I got an awful lot out of the course. I put a lot of time and effort in the course, but I could only do that because I have a computer sitting in my den that I (can)...work on at my own speed and my own time. The other course that I took...was so frustrating because I could never keep up with what was going on in class. I was always behind. Whereas with this one, I could catch up...or if I couldn't figure out this section, I didn't have to say anything. Or if I couldn't figure out the article, I could see what other people were saying first.
Several students reported about the value of being able to access the computer at times when the course work did not conflict with other family responsibilities. Young children often need attention during the critical 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. period when many part-time courses are offered. With computermediated communication system, people could work during the day when children were elsewhere, or work late at night or during the early morning. This convenience allowed the student to devote full attention to academic work without being distracted by other family concerns.
The second major theme that emerged during the 1986 interviews was the strong relationship between the course and the required reading.
You are not going to read very much in Community (the name of the conference) before you realize that you have to do the reading. Even if you are not going to contribute, you still have to do the reading. I have never been in a course like that where there has been so much internal pressure to stay up.
Another student reported,
You can't help comparing this course with others. What did I accomplish in the others and what did I accomplish here?...In this method it has been almost compulsory to do the reading. There is far more learning going on in this course than listening to the other chap week after week.
Finally, the students commented on the feeling of community in the course. As one student said,
I think the fact that we were dedicated to development and being a community ourselves. I would look at that as well and just see how we were operating. It was just like it was intensified for the whole thing. Not only were we doing it and learning it, but we were it.
All but two of the students reported satisfaction with the learning partner exercise, but they did indicate that it was important to set explicit expectations for tasks and to set specific due dates for particular parts of the assignment. The students also felt that it was important to spend some time on the computer at the same time during the discussion of the exercise. As indicated in the analysis, a major strategy was to send drafts of the paper back and forth. One student would write a draft of a section and the second student would edit the work of the first, adding points and changing wording as appropriate. The draft was then sent back to the first student for another round. In the five active learning partnerships at least 3 and as many as 10 drafts of each paper were produced, with a mean number of 6.
All of the small groups were active, as none of the groups were composed completely of members located in the same geographical location. The small groups in the 1987 course used the same strategies developed in the learning partnerships. The groups set up schedules and due dates for their tasks and worked together to develop, review, and revise their papers. There was a lot of discussion about different approaches to the problem. The papers were well-done and the students reported a feeling of accomplishment. It was noted that there was a greater variation in the participation in the small groups than there was in the learning partnerships.
This paper has explored two methods of facilitating learning in a computer conference, both of which emphasize the joint writing of assignments. Students have been successful in the assignments and have commented favorably on the experience. They have developed successful strategies for writing together and have recognized the need for clear expectations of one another and careful planning of time.
It is too early to tell the appropriate size of groups for this kind of assignment. One student who had taken another computer-mediated communication course with small groups commented favorably on the learning part-nerships. She felt that, early in the course, the experience of working with just one other student was less confusing than trying to negotiate with several others. There was some indication that starting with just one learning partner helped students while they were learning the mechanisms of working with the computer conference.
At this stage we know little about ways to facilitate learning through computer-mediated communication. This paper has explored two apparently successful techniques using joint writing assignments. The data are impressionistic and we need to continue to experiment with different techniques. Future research might focus on different size groups, different kinds of assignments, different presentation methods (e.g., presenting some material on-line), and the relationship between learning style and student achievement. It is hoped that this paper has presented some food for thought. The computer-mediated communication medium is a new factor in distance education, and we need to share our experiences as we develop it.
Bååth, J. A. (1982). Experimental research on computer-assisted distance education. In J. S. Daniel, M. A. Stroud, & J. R. Thompson (Eds.), Learning at a distance: A world perspective (pp. 303- 305). International Council for Correspondence Education. Edmonton, Alta.: Athabasca University Press.
Bacsich, P. D. (1984). Computer conferencing in distance education. Will it work in the UK? The Open University, Great Britain: Faculty of Technology. Preprint of a paper to appear in A. Jones, T. O'Shea, & E. Scanlon (Eds.) (1985). The computer revolution in education. Volume 1: New technologies for distance teaching. England: Harvester.
Cross, T. B. (1983). Computer teleconferencing and education. Educational Technology, 23(4), 29-31. Davie, L. (1987). Learning through networks: A graduate course using computer conferencing. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, XIII(2), 11-26.
Davie, L., & Palmer, P. (1984). Computer-teleconferencing for advanced distance education. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 10(2), 57-66.
Davis, B., & Marlowe, C. (1984). The computer as a networking and information resource for adult learners. New Directions for Continuing Education, 29, 89-95.
DeLoughry, T. J. (1988, April 20). Remote instruction using computers found as effective as classroom sessions. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A1, A21.
Eldridge, J. R. (1982). New dimensions in distance learning. Training and Development Journal, 36(10), 42-44, 46-47. Harasim, L. (1986). Computer learning networks: Educational applications of computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 59-70. Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal for Educational Communication, 16(2), 117-135.
Hiltz, S. R. (1988). A virtual classroom on EISES: Final evaluation report. NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology. Hiltz, S. R. (1986). The "virtual classroom": Using computer- mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Johnson, K. (1981). The effect of structure, task, and individual attributes on consensus in computerized conferences. In R. Uhlig (Ed.), Computer message system (pp. 91-102). NY: North Holland.
Kaye, A. R. (1987, Spring). Introducing computer-mediated communication into a distance education system. Canadian Journal for Educational Communication, 16(2), 153-166.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.
Levinson, P. (1988). Impact of personal information technologies on American education, interpersonal relations, and business, 1985-2010. In P. Durbin (Ed.), Technology and contemporary life (pp. 177-191). Boston, MA: Reidel.
Mason, R. (1988). Computer conferencing: A contribution to self-directed learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 28-41. Participation Systems. (1985). Participate user's guide. Winchester, MA: Participation Systems.
Quinn, C. N., Mehan, H., Levin, J. A., & Black, S. D. (1983). Real education in non-real time: The use of electronic message system for instruction. Instructional Science, 11(4), 313-327.
Schroeder, R. E. (1981). Computer conferencing: Exploding the classroom walls. Technological Horizons in Education, 8(2), 46.