Flexible approaches to using technology for online interaction

University of AberdeenTeaching and Learning Symposium

January 11 2012

Sarah Cornelius and Yvonne BainSchool of Education

Sarah Yvonne

You

The Plan

• A few words on flexibility and interaction• Your experiences and challenges• Our examples:

1. Towards a flexible model for interactive course delivery - the TQFE

2. Asynchronous interaction using discussion forums3. Synchronous interaction with web conferencing

• Your examples: – Issues and first thoughts on solutions– Where next?

5 dimensions (Collis and Moonen, 2001)1. Time2. Content3. Entry Requirements4. Instructional approach and resources5. Course delivery and logistics

Giving learners choices about what to study

Meeting diverse student needs andstyles

Learner-centred notteacher-centred

Developing independent Lifelong learners

Teacher as facilitator

Interaction is one of the most important components of any learning experience

(Vrasidas and McIsaac, 1999)

‘the interaction level in a synchronous class is a significant factor

in the effectiveness of the class’ (Skylar, 2009, p. 71).

students’ satisfaction with their learning environment

is affected by levels of interaction (Stephens and Mottet, 2008)

Transactional distance (Moore)Conversational Framework (Laurillard)

Purposeful, encouraged and managed

INTERACTION

Learner-teacher

Mediated by technology

Adapted from Terry Anderson (2003) www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230

Your examples

How do you, or would you like to, encourage flexibility and interaction for your learners?

• Something you are proud of?• A scenario you would like to improve?• An approach you would like to develop?• An aspiration?

Adapted from Terry Anderson (2003) www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230

Example 1flexible content

Example 2 effective discussion

Example 3 real-time interaction

Example 1: Flexible learner-content interaction

Teaching Qualification for Further Education

Why do we need flexibility?

• Diversity of learners• College demands and practice• Flexibility of study modes • Flexible access for tutors• Ease of updating and reuse

Online Activities for individual or

collaborative study and/or workshops

Working Together On-campus

Working Together On-line

Guiding principlesReflective practice

Collaborative inquiryAuthentic problems

Individual learning journey

Professional standards for lecturers in FE

What have we learned?

• No ‘typical’ response to flexibility - although mostly positive

• Diversity of learners’ strategies– Universalists, butterflies and changelings

• IT skills and technology issues impact experience • Importance of induction and setting expectations• Role of support and collaboration

Example 2: Flexible asynchronous interaction

Towards a framework for learning through online discussion

Why?"CMC has the potential to provide a means for the weaving together of ideas and information from many people's minds, regardless of when and from where they contribute." Kaye (1989: 3)

•Is the potential realised?

Thread 3: Social Viewpoint

Thread 4: Burial at Ornans

14th November

15th November

16th November

17th November

18th November

19th November

20th November

21st November

491 RosePosts question

14/11 17:47

493 CamilleReplies

152 words15/11 10:21

494 Tutor Posts further

question16/11 12:24

496 CamilleResponds166 words16/11 22:10

497 LillaAsks question17/11/08 12:04

498 CamilleResponds243 words17/11 14:54

499 RoseAsks further question

17/11 15:45

503 CamilleResponds174 words17/11 18:00

508 RosalbaAsks question on different aspect

20/11 23:05

506 RosalbaAsks question20/11 22:33

509 CamilleResponds114 words21/11 12:13

Valued Art Form thread initiated by

Camille

Corot and classicism thread initiated by Rose

13th November

14th November

20th November

21st November

455 CamilleAsks question13/11 13:49

456 Rosalbareplies

674 words21/11 10:46

457 Roseasks question14/11 14:48

458 Rosalbareplies

251 words20/11 20:30

•Is the potential realised? Not always!

What have we learned?

Reflecting on the thinking of others

Reflecting on own perspective

unconnectedpost

connectedpost

Composing

Reflecting

(1) COVERT INDIVIDUAL THINKING

Individual learner responds to some stimulus.

(2) COVERT COLLECTIVE INFORMED

THINKINGIndividual reads others'

messages.

(3) ARTICULATIONof own thoughts

OI(4) OVERT INDIVIDUAL

THINKINGIndividual posts an unconnected

message.

OC (4) OVERT COLLECTIVE THINKING

Individual posts a connected, threaded message.

A framework for learning through online discussion – useful to support students’ learning?

Example 3: Flexible synchronous interaction

Synchronous online workshops for the TQFE

Why?• To meet college and individual needs• To reduce staff release/travel time

requirements• To integrate learners from distributed

locations• To replicate face to face workshop experience• To enhance technology skills

What have we learned?

• Learners’ perspective– Convenient, flexible approach– Easy to learn– Facilitates interaction and collaboration

• Teachers’ perspective– Facilitation is demanding– Encouraging interaction in absence of visual clues– Duality of experience– Importance of team approach

Group Activity

In small groups• Share your ideas for improving flexibility and/or

interaction using technology • Choose one ‘idea’ to discuss further

– On flipchart paper1. Outline the idea briefly2. Raise any issues that need to be considered3. Outline possible solutions or add comments4. Revisit your idea

Keep in mind flexibility and interaction

Discussion

• Issues raised by case studies• Planning for action – what will you do next?

Further informationOur research• Bain, Y (2011) Learning through online discussion: a framework evidenced in learners’ interactions. ALT-C 2011

Thriving in a colder and more challenging climate, conference proceedings, Leeds. Access http://repository.alt.ac.uk/2172/

• Cornelius S, Gordon C and Ackland A (2011) Towards flexible learning for adult learners in professional contexts: an activity-focused course design. Interactive Learning Environments 19(4) 381-394

• Cornelius S. (2011) Convenience and Community? An exploratory investigation into learners' experiences of web conferencing. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 2696-2704). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

References and other sources of information• Anderson T. (2003) Getting the mix right: an updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of

Research in Open and Distance Learning. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230• Collis B. and Moonen J. (2001) Flexible learning in a digital world: experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page• Kaye, A (1989) Computer-mediated Communication and Distance Learning. In R. Mason and A. Kaye (eds)

Mindweave: Computers, Communication and Distance Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp 1 - 21• Laurillard D. (2002) Rethinking university practice: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning

technologies. London: RoutledgeFalmer. • Moore M. G. (1997) Theory of transactional distance. In: Keegan, D. (ed.). Theoretical principles of distance

education. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 22-38.• Skylar A. A. (2009) A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous interactive web

conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69-84.• Stephens K. K. and Mottet T. P. (2008) Interactivity in a web conference training context: effects on trainers and

trainees. Communication Education, 57(1), 88-104.• Vrasidas C., and McIsaac S. M. (1999) Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of

Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36.