Anne Nevgi

Research lecturer, Dr.

University of Helsinki

e-mail: anne-marja.nevgi@helsinki.fi

A Teacher in the Web - new possibilities for interaction and communication

New information techonology offers for teachers new possibilities for interaction and communication with students. In my presentation I will consider challenges and possibilities the new information technology and computer mediated communication (CMC) offers to a teacher. Especially I will focus on the new possibilities of communication and how a teacher can organize and facilitate learning in the Web-based course and I will present some useful ideas for a single teacher how to succeed in his/her very first Web-based course. These ideas are based on both the literature and the research results we have obtained in our Evaluation and Development Project of Web-based Learning Environments in the Continuing Education Centre of University of Helsinki.

New theories about learning emphasize cognitive and metacognitive processes and learner-centered view of learning. One of the most discussed views of learning has been constructivism, and this term has also come to serve as an umbrella for a wide diversity of views (Duffy & Cunningham 1996, 171). Constructivist ideas of learning can be divided into two main views of learning; cognitive constructivism and social constructivism. The focus of the first view of learning is in the individual cognitive learning processes. Learning is seen as an active cognitive reorganization, organization of information concepts, problems, themes and interrelationships. In the socio-constructive view learning is seen as a process of social interaction and acculturation into an established community of practice. (Bonk & Cunningham 1998.)

Both new theories of learning and the new possibilities of computer mediated communication challenge teachers to think over their views of teaching and learning. In the teaching and training there is always a question about the communication. By defining different forms of communication we can better understand the role they have in the different training situations. Garrison (1989) divides communication in one-way (a person is communicating to others without feedback possibilities) and two-way or interactive communication. The situations of communication can be both natural (face-to-face) or transmitted (letter, telephone, information networks). The transmitted communication can be both synchronous, which means that communication between two or more people happens at real time (like television, radio, telephone, video conferences etc.), and asynchronous, meaning that participants are not on-line, at the same time (like video cassettes, electronic mails, letters, computer conferences etc...). (Manninen & Nevgi 1999.)

Harasim (1989) presents that in CMC there can be distinguished one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many learning approaches. Paulsen (1992) includes to this division also one-alone learning. In the one-alone model of learning a student can study in the web-based course alone with the course material writing essayes etc. In one-to-one model of learning a student and a teacher can communicate with each other through electronic mail and in one-to-many model a teacher can give a lecture or send message to many students at the same time. The most interesting of these models of CMC-based learning is many-to-many, where students as well as teachers have equal possibilities to communicate in own pace. When the many-to-many model is implied as asynchronous, all participants have time to read and reflect before commenting and participating in the discussions.

The different types of communications can be classified as follows in the table 1 below:

Table 1. Types of communications.

	Natural	transmitted
		Synchronous	Asynchronous
One way	official speech “bad“ lecture	television, radio (live broadcast)	book, records (television, radio), cassette, Web page, news groups
Two way one to one one to many many to many	discussion “good“ lecture group discussion	telephone, chat audio lectures, video lectures online-computer conference	letter, electronic mail, learning diary in Web-page distribution lists computer conference, interactive Web pages Discussion groups in Web-based courses

(Manninen & Nevgi 1999.)

The asynchronous communication makes it possible for students to read the text at their own pace and answer after reflection of the ideas presented in the text. It is possible that the asynchrounous and from many-to-many communication and learning equalizes the relationships between students and everyone can participate into the discussion equally with others. (Harasim 1995.) The computer mediated communication can be specified as a teacher monitored or a student monitored (Paulsen 1994). The possibilities for a teacher to discuss with students become qualitatively different when there are used learning diaries, learning contracts and other interactive techniques of instruction in CMC -based learning environment. The learning diary makes it possible for a teacher to follow the learning process of a single student and facilitate his / her learning in a new and more personal way.

Technological possibilities and the types of communication

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is generic term for a variety of systems that enable people to communicate with others by means of computers and networks. CMC is possible through different technologies like electronic mail, discussion lists, chat, bulletin boards, computer conferencing, and internet etc. (Romizowski & Mason 1996, 438.)

Electronic learning network is a group of interconnected computers that are used to accomplish a set of tasks. A network has three components; connectivity, standards and addressing. At a physical level there must be some kind of connections between the linked computers, like wireless signals, telephone lines, high-speed fiber-optic cable, a satellite or any combination of these carriers. The network must have a common language or a communication standard. Without an agreed-upon method of exchanging information, computers like humans, are incapable of communication with each other. (Haughey & Anderson 1998, 10 – 11.) Each computer on the network and each user on networked computer must have a unique address, so that data communication takes place using transport control protocol internet address (TCP/IP) to connect the destined machine, to deliver the information to the user of that machine.

At the moment there are enormously increasing number of hybrid applications, which make possible instruction through Internet. There are many possible software packages for networked learning and communication like conferencing systems (PortaCom), especially for instruction like EIES (Electronic Information Exchange System by Murray Turoff at New Jersey Intitute of TEchnology), Virtual Classroom and Participate. Some of the recently developed systems for instruction in Finland are HEVI (Virtual Open University of Helsinki), FLE (Future Learning Environment) and Apaja Internet-service. Internet offers new possibilities for distant adult education to mediate instruction. In Virtual Open University of Helsinki (HEVI) has been possible to study in Web-based courses through internet from autumn 1997 and as a complete service HEVI was opened in January 1998. In my presentation I use some examples from the Web-based courses of HEVI.

New media technology gives new possibilites for interaction and communication and also new possibilities for teaching and changes the role of the teacher in a challenging way. In the table 2 page 5 there are compared the different types of interaction and communication in CMC –based learning environments. The table is based on Paulsen’s (1995) presentation about the new teaching method which CMC technology enables: His presentation is completed with the review of the roles of a teacher in a different interaction modes and there are presented advantages and disadvantages of the computer mediated teaching.

In CMC -based instruction techniques the many-to-many and asynchronous type of communication seems to have most advatages compared to other types of communication and interaction. The asynchronity of communication gives time for a student to reflect her/his thoughts and to find new point of views and so present more deeply thought arguments of a subject.

The constructivist viewpoint is often aligned with CMC and there has been presented advantages of the increased possibilities for collaborative learning through CMC. From the social constructivist view of learning is seen as “conversation“ and it is argued that CMC, through the provision of real opportunities for conversation enables the development of metacognitive skills, problem-solving, and critical-thinking skills. (Romizowski & Mason 1996, 441.) The many-to-many asynchnronous learning and communication environment seems to enable the collaborative learning processes.

In the disadvantages the teacher workload and the feelings of isolation of students follows from the two different solutions in the strutuctures of the Web-based courses. The more interarction there is between the students and a teacher, the more increases the workload for a teacher. And opposite to that, the less interaction there is between students and a teacher, the more there are the feelings of isolations in the experiences of students (Nevgi 1999).

Table 2. The comparison of different types of interaction and communication in CMC –technologies based learning environments.

	Types of interaction and communication
	One-alone	One-to-one	One-to-many	Many-to-many asynchronized synchronized
CMC technologies	Online applications Internet FTP (File Transfer Protocol) Software exchange systems Online databases Software libraries Electronic journals and publications	Electronic mail	Electronic mail Distribution lists Computer conference systems	Computer conference systems Interactive www-page	chat online-computer conferencing
Instruction techniques	Computer-assisted instruction private study	Learning contract Mentorship Apprenticeship Correspondence study	Electronic lecture Giving information to a student group Asking questions	Discussion Groups Debate Project Group Simulation and games Role play Transcript-Based Assignments Brainstroming - Brainwriting Delphi Technique Nominal Group Technique	Weekly Meetings Real-time Tutoring and Guiding
A role of a teacher	Author of manuscript for web-based course	Tutor Mentor Guide Distant teacher	Lecturer Expert Facilitator Moderator	Moderator Facilitator Expert Assistant Provocateur Mediator Observer Participant	Moderator Tutor
Advantages	Dissemination of diversified study Material available free from time and place	Rapidity in an exchange of messages Partners free from the restrictions of time and place	Records instruction for later use Same notes for all the students	Frees the members of a group from time and place Makes possible to reflect and think before answering Socialization into the study group commits to studies	Real-time Lessens the feelings of isolation
Disadvantages	Information overload Difficult to distinguish the essential	Teacher workload Personal relationships remain too distant if face-to-face meetings are not also used Problems in file tranfer	Unpersonal Feelings of isolation. Unnecessary printing. Information overload. “Dullness“ in reading text based communication.	Teacher workload Difficulties in combining many roles of teacher in a work of one teacher. Expensive and long connection time needed sometimes. Difficulties in tracing out the discussion chains.	Expensive Long time per a connection Demands presence at a certain time Clumsiness in a discussion Not recorded

(Manninen & Nevgi 1999)

How to promote asyncronized many-to-many discussion in the Web-based course?

Teacher’s and moderator’s role can be classified into two basic functions: task roles and socioemotional roles. Mason (1991) has identified three role functions that computer conferencing moderators must possess. These role functions are: organizational role, social role and intellectual role. As organizator a teacher sets the agenda for the discussion; the objectivities of discussion, the timetable, procedural rules and decision-making norms. As a creator of an athmosphere for a web- based course and for discussion groups a teacher has a social role by creating a friendly, social environment for learning. The most important role for a teacher is an intellectual role, in which s/he acts as an educational facilitator by focusing discussions on crucial points, asking questions and probing responses so that s/he may encourage students to expand and build on comments. (Paulsen 1995, 83.)

Duffy & Dueber & Hawley (1998) present based on their researches on collaborative reasoning , that in collaborative problem-solving process there can be distinguished two basic forms: conversation and issue-based discussion. Conversation is the foundation of a group work, and it is free, changing quickly to different subjects, more associative than analytic and a goal for conversation is to get a common understanding. The theme conversations is controlled, monitored and systematically, according to a plan, progressing and the participants are together trying to solve the problem they have identified themselves. For free conversations are typical “me“ -centered comments like “this is the way I understood this“. The conversations arise from the experience of the participants and this leads easily to monologue, where all the participants just present their own views, and not comment the views of others. This type of conversation is very typical in CMC educational conference, especially if a teacher has not planned beforehand the themes and the structure of discussions. Teachers criticizes this type of conversation, because they don’t see any learning goals reached by it. Still this type of conversation is necessary when the focus is on creating contacts and social-emotionally approving atmosphere on the conference. (Duffy & Dueber & Hawley 1998, 58 – 59.)

Theme conversations need from the instructor more moderating and organization. How to present the task for the participants and get them involved to common problem solving. Theme conversations can be promoted by questioning, problematizing and asking students themselves to find the problems of the subject. In this type of conversation there should not be more than five to ten persons per discussion group. (Duffy & Dueber & Hawley 1998, 59.)

In the Web-based courses of HEVI there has been used both free possibilities for conversations and theme discussions, and in the course The basics learning psychology there has been used both the free student coffee-house area for open conversations and theme discussion spaces for structured and problem-solving discussions for the students. This solution has socialised students into the study group and has encouraged them to discuss freely of their emotions and feelings in doing the tasks of the course and also to participate into the theme discussion space eagerly and well-prepared. (Nevgi 1999)

In the table 3 below there are collected some ideas (based on Mason 1998 and Paulsen 1994) how to promote learning in many-to-many communication model.

Table 3. Facilitation of a Web-based course.

	Facilitation techniques
Organizational facilitation	Structure discussions (opening, monitoring and closing). Break large numbers of students into small groups (under ten). Provide spesific tasks (essays to the discussion space, seaches for answeres to set questions in readings or Web resources). Set timelines for discussions.
Intellectual facilitation	Summarize the discussion or ask / order the students to summarize discussion. Use interactive tasks in the course material. Prepare the possibilities for collaborative learning, common tasks, problems for a group of students. Make for students possible to comment each others tasks.
Social facilitation	Open free conversations space (student coffee house etc.). Reinforce good discussant behaviors. Request change in poor discussant behaviors. Be responsive and respond to every contribution. Request metacomments. Invite participants to tell how they feel about the course in the Web.

When the new opportunity of group communication with students at a distance became possible, many teachers found that to generate good discussions online takes careful planning and structuring. Setting timelines for discussion, breaking large numbers of students into small groups (preferably under ten) and providing spesific tasks and themed discussions instead of free and open for all discussion has been used to give structure to the Web-based course and to help the learner to take an active part. (Mason 1998)

The meaning of the conversations must be decleared in the very beginning of the course. The discussions can be divided into theme and free discussion groups. There can be arranged common work space for a student group to present their essays or to discuss and solve some problems or to do some task together. In theme discussion the role of instructor is both organizational and intellectual facilitator.

Some very first results from my research concerning the Web-based courses of HEVI has shown that the unstructured and time-independent discussions and open and free participation to the courses are unrealistic ideas. The students of this type of courses have dropped out and not been able to finish their studies or they have lost their interesse for studies. And the courses which are sturctured, time-tabled, including different theme discussion spaces and spaces for open conversation have been also successful in ecucational gains. Students have managed in their studies and they have also felt that they have learned better than in traditional face-to-face classroom lectures. These feelings are expressed in the quotation below:

“I have been very positively supprised. The studies has been surprising demanding, but I have the feeling that I’ve really learned. These discussion spaces in the course has been the top thing, I believe that I think over the subject more than the students in normal lecture.“ (A student of Open University of Helsinki, female, 35)

References

Bonk, C.J. & Cunningham, D.J. 1998. Searning for Learner-Centered, Constructivist, and Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educational Learning Tools. In Curtis Jay Bonk & Kira S. King (ed.) Electronic Collaborators. Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse. 25 – 49.

Duffy, T. M. & Dueber, B. Hawley, C. L. 1998. Critical thinking in a Distributed Environment: A Pedagogical Base for the Design of Conferencing Systems. In Curtis Jay Bonk & Kira S. King (ed.) Electronic Collaborators. Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse. 51 – 78.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. 1996. Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Intruction. In David H. Jonassen (ed.) Handbook for Research for Educational Communications and Technology. London: Macmillan. 170 – 198.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. & Turoff, M. 1995. Learning Networks. A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Haughey, M. L. & Anderson, T. 1998. Networked learning – The Pedagogy of the Internet. Chenelière: McGraw-Hill.

Manninen, J. & Nevgi, A.-M. 1999. Opetus verkossa - vuorovaikutuksen uudet mahdollisuudet.. Manuscript to be published in a new publication (ed. by Matikainen J. & Manninen J. ) by The Research and Training Centre of Lahti in January 2000.

Mason, R. 1998. Models of Online Courses. Asynchronous Learning Networks. 21.7.1999 http://www.aln.org/alnweb1magazine/vol2_issue2/Masorfinal.htm

Nevgi A.-M. 1999. Solitary and Collaborative Learning in the Web. Presentation in Collaborative Learning in Virtual Environments Conference at Jyväskylä 26. - 28.5.1999.

Paulsen, M.F. 1995. Moderating Educational Computer Conferences. In Zane L. Berge & Mauri P. Collins (ed.) Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom. Volume Three: Distance Learning. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press. 81 – 90.

Romizowski & Mason, R. 1996. Computer-Mediated Communication. In David H. Jonassen (ed.) Handbook for Research for Educational Communications and Technology. London: Macmillan. 438 - 456.

Schieman, E.S., Taere & McLaren, J. 1992. Towards a course development model for graduate level distance education. Journal of Distance Education. 7 (2), 51 – 65.