Student and Teacher Perspectives in Computer-Mediated Learning Environments in Teacher Education

COMPUTER-MEDIATED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 169

Learning Environments Research 2: 169190, 1999. 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

SWEE CHIEW GOH AND KENNETH TOBIN

STUDENT AND TEACHER PERSPECTIVES IN COMPUTER-MEDIATED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS IN TEACHER

EDUCATION

Received 10 July 1998; accepted (in revised form) 29 November 1998

ABSTRACT. Rapid advances in technology, particularly with the Internet, have led to theavailability of numerous tools to support teaching and learning. This study involved the useof an Internet application, Connecting Communities of Learners (CCL), in courses forprospective teachers. Unlike earlier studies involving the use of the CCL, the context of thisstudy related to full-time graduate students who used the CCL to augment weekly face-to-face instruction. An interpretive study was undertaken to ascertain student and teacherperceptions of the learning environments associated with the use of the CCL. Through theuse of the CCL, students were able to be autonomous in regard to their own learning, co-participate with their peers and the instructor, and establish and maintain a community oflearners in which participants could interact with others as co-teachers and co-learners.The CCL was perceived as a useful tool for building learning environments in which allparticipants can contribute written texts as evidence of what is known and as objects fromwhich others can learn.

KEY WORDS: asynchronous interactions, computers, Internet, learning environments,student perceptions, teacher education, teacher perceptions.

1. INTRODUCTION

A persistent problem in teacher education classes is the dubious quality ofverbal interaction during whole- and small-group classes. In whole-groupclasses, the main problem is that only small proportions of the studentscontribute and, when they do, the perceived relevance of their contributionsis not high for all students. Lengthy presentations are not seen as contributingto the learning of all students, short presentations can lack depth, and allpresentations are usually unrehearsed. Students often express a preferencefor the teacher to plan and make presentations rather than have studentsdo so. In small groups, the problems we have experienced most areassociated with the difficulty which even the best students have in maintainingfocus on the discussions and tasks. Even when we closely supervise theinteractions of students, there is a tendency for some of them to deal withsocial agendas and not accomplish as much as we feel that they shouldwhen we decide to initiate a small-group activity.

SWEE CHIEW GOH AND KENNETH TOBIN170

One problem of real time verbal interaction is its spontaneity. There is littletime for reflection and the resultant oral texts usually are not a valid indicationof what students know. Rowe (1974) and Tobin (1987) demonstrated in theirresearch on wait time that the quality of verbal interaction and associatedlearning could be enhanced by increasing the amount of silence separatingbursts of speech to an average of between three to five seconds. Rowe (1983)extended this idea in what she referred to as the ten-two method wherebyapproximately two minutes of every ten was set aside for students to reflecton what they had been taught and had learned. The research suggests thatincreasing the asynchrony of interactions, thereby diminishing the necessityto respond rapidly to others, increases the quality of the learning environmentand enhances learning. A social constructivist perspective on learning(Glasersfeld, 1995; Tobin, 1993) regards interaction as a critical ingredient inlearning with understanding and promoting co-participation within communitiesusing a shared-as-negotiated language to construct knowledge and test itsviability. With the rapid expansion of the Internet, many new opportunitiesnow exist for creating communities of learners and fostering productive learningenvironments. Hence, on the basis of these empirical and theoreticalperspectives, there was an interest in ascertaining whether or not an Internet-based application could facilitate the development of a learning environmentin which students could interact asynchronously to promote reflection,autonomy for learners, and opportunities for everyone to participate in waysthat would enhance their own learning and that of others within the community.

Technology can be used to create a community in which individualsinteract in ways that produce resources for the learning of all participants.Our goal was to create a computer application to maximize learning byinteracting in communities, and thereby to enable co-participation to emergeand be sustained (Gee, 1990; Lemke, 1995; Schn, 1985). Co-participationoccurs when interactions employ a shared-as-negotiated language to pursuegoals. The shared language is continually adapted to be compatible with theextant knowledge of individuals who seek to attain their goals by collaboratingwith others who are pursuing similar goals or who already have attainedthem. As individuals participate, there are numerous sources of learning thatinclude watching and mimicking others who know and can do, beingcorrected when actions are incorrect (i.e. considered not viable) orinappropriate, and being commended for appropriate or exemplary actions.In addition, participants are able to access and appropriate the cultural toolsof the community (e.g. skills, language, beliefs, and values) to participateappropriately and learn to act and interact in different, yet authentic, ways.

Participants in an electronic community can interact about a variety ofissues and learn to make sense of their professional experiences in terms of


a range of new theoretical frameworks to be introduced in a course. We didnot want to create a system like a classroom in which interaction isconstrained to one person speaking at a time with everyone else listening.Instead, we thought it made more sense to allow participants to communicatewhen they had the time and when they felt that they had something of valueto say. In addition, we wanted participants to be able to read, think, and thenbegin to formulate a response. Careful thought would be a characteristic ofthis community and autonomy would be provided for learners to interactand communicate at their convenience. We decided to build an Internetapplication to permit a variety of asynchronous modes of interaction betweenthe participants (Tobin, 1998).

Prior studies involved the use of an Internet application, ConnectingCommunities of Learners (CCL), developed for the delivery of graduateprograms in science and mathematics education (Tobin, in press). Thesestudies explored the perceptions held by practicing teachers of the learningenvironments associated with their learning to teach science in middle andelementary schools. In contrast, this study focuses on the use of the CCLto augment on-campus courses for prospective teachers enrolled in a graduatedegree program leading to certification to teach science and/or mathematicsat high school grade levels.

2. THE CCL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

The CCL was used for a teacher education course in secondary teachereducation in the fall and spring semesters in 19971998. The version of theCCL used in this study was similar to the version used in previous researchin terms of features and key functions to support student learning. OriginallyKenneth Tobin developed and implemented the CCL for use in a distancelearning program for practicing teachers. He envisioned that incorporatingthe Internet in his teaching would facilitate his intentions to create a reflectiveand collaborative learning environment in which students would enjoyconvenience, efficiency and autonomy in learning to be effective teachers.

In this technologically advanced and increasingly computerized world, thedevelopment and use of this computer-mediated program in teachereducation would reinforce the importance of integrating computers intoclassroom instruction at various educational levels. This would not onlyemphasize the relevance of instructional technology in classroom teachingbut also exploit more adequately the role of computers in teacher education.The computer was employed both as a vehicle for lesson delivery by theteacher and as a learning tool for student teachers.


The Internet was used to create a reflective, interactive and collaborativelearning environment through the various components of the CCL (seeTable I) which mutually support one another so as to connect all the learnersin a web of communication. The key features are the Mailroom, NoticeBoards, Critical Reviews, Conferences and Dialogue Journals (DJs).

In addition, the CCL web-site was intended to encourage studentautonomy of learning. Easy access to the CCL web-site could help studentsto become autonomous learners. It was the students responsibility to engagewith the computer network of classmates and the teacher. Accordingly,students made decisions and controlled their own learning in relation towhether to log on and tap into the wealth of learning materials provided bythe teacher on the CCL and to interact with peers and teacher, and to takea stance concerning issues raised. Ultimately, the process of thinking,evaluating and contributing to the different components of the CCL wouldhelp to foster greater self-discipline and self-monitoring among theparticipants. We intended this to produce more disciplined and responsibleteachers.

3. PURPOSE

The main purpose of this study was to examine both the students andtheir teachers perceptions of the learning environments associated with

TABLE I

Main components of the CCLComponents Nature DescriptionMail Room Public/open to all participants Students and teachers can send e-mail to each

other and keep in touch.

Notice Boards Public/open to peers and teacher All students and teachers can postannouncements/notices/topics to interactand discuss.

DJs Semi-private/open to each Selected peers and the teacher engage in semi-small group and teacher private conversations on professional issues.

Critical Reviews Public/open to peers and Reviews of books, chapters, articles, etc. areteacher posted publicly and interaction occurs

between teacher and peers.

Conference Center Public/open to peers and teacher. Issues about action and their learningStudents assigned roles research are discussed.as convener, critic, presenter


the CCL, a computer-based application used to enhance the learningenvironment in some courses in the Masters of Science in Education programat the University of Pennsylvania. A comparison was made of the perceptionsof both teacher and students to explore whether there were differences.This study highlights differences and similarities in the perspectives ofstudents and their teacher toward the incorporation of the Internet in agraduate teacher preparation program.

4. DESIGN AND METHOD

Recently, there has been a swing toward the use of qualitative and quantitativemethods in research on learning environments, as reflected in the first issueof Learning Environments Research (LER). In the lead article, Barry Frasercommented that The assessment of learning environments and researchapplications have involved a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods,and an important accomplishment within the field has been the productivecombination of quantitative and qualitative research methods (Fraser, 1998,p. 7). This introductory article surveys the field of learning environmentresearch over a 30-year period, showing quite clearly that the predominantmethod employed in this genre of research has been the use of pencil-and-paper surveys to obtain measures of the perceptions of students of thelearning environments that they experience and prefer. Similar instrumentsalso have been used to assess teachers perceptions of the learningenvironments of their students. Frasers (1998) article describes someinteresting attempts to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data instudies of learning environments, but does not highlight studies like thepresent one in which only qualitative data are used in explorations of learningenvironments. Before describing the methods employed in our study, webriefly review those used in the other papers in the first issue of LER.

Three papers adhered to Frasers recommendation and incorporatedqualitative and quantitative data in their studies of learning environments.Admiraal and his colleagues were interested in evaluating student teachersexperiences of computer conferencing (Admiraal et al., 1998). In that sense,the purposes of the study were similar to those underpinning our study. Theirstudy involved analyzing two surveys and email messages received from theparticipants in the study. The analyses were referenced to a framework thathad been used in earlier research in which themes were categorized as action,looking back on action, awareness of essential aspects, creation of alternativemethods of actions, and trial. Their study employed the middle threecategories only.


Templeton and Johnson (1998) employed surveys and interpretiveprocedures to explore the environments in elementary classrooms in an urbansetting. However, their procedures led to two sets of findings, one from thequantitative data and the other from the use of interpretive methods. To theextent possible, it would be desirable to have each research outcome beingsupported by a variety of qualitative and quantitative data.

Roth (1998) used the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey(CLES) (Taylor et al., 1997) to measure the extent to which studentsperceived their learning environments as consistent with constructivism. Inaddition, Roth employed a variety of qualitative data in an endeavor to betterunderstand students cognition. The basis for assessing the qualitativedimensions of the learning environment were analyses of videotapes ofclasses and interviews with selected participants. Roth concluded that theinterviews with individual students revealed even more than the individualand scale scores on the perception instrument; this additional informationwas crucial for our work as teachers and gave us a better understanding ofthe direct effects that our reform efforts had on individual students (p. 90).

Two articles reported use of either quantitative or qualitative data only.Waxman and Huang (1998) employed two student self-report surveyinstruments in a quantitative study of students perceptions of the learningenvironments of urban classrooms. In contrast, Lorsbach and Basolo (1998)employed qualitative data in an investigation of student and teacher perceptionsof the learning environment in an eighth grade physical science class.

A unique design evolved for our study. Swee Chiew Goh was anindependent observer, not involved in the planning or teaching of thecourses. She attended one of the classes as an observer and undertook acareful analysis of the written texts on the CCL and, as necessary, conductedinterviews with students and the teacher. Goh was not a stakeholder in eitherthe educational program or the development of the CCL. In contrast,Kenneth Tobin initiated the development and use of the CCL and was theinstructor in the courses that provided the context for the study. Tobinplanned and taught the class through two semesters and participated in theanalysis and interpretation of data. The other major stakeholders were agroup of science education students who participated in courses for twosemesters and a group of mathematics education students who participatedfor one semester.

The participants in the research were selected from the science andmathematics education students. Those who volunteered to participate inthe study were included in a pool from which participants were drawn in away that employed serial and contingent selection (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).Initially, we selected from the pool of volunteers the person from whom we


felt we could learn most about use of the CCL to meet her learning goals.We considered the extent to which she exercised autonomy in participating,the manner in which co-participation occurred, and the qualia she exhibited(e.g. interests, curiosity, enjoyment, satisfaction, stimulation and apprecia-tion) while using the CCL. When we felt that we had learned as much aswe could from this person, we selected another person who was as differentas possible from the initial participant. The second participant, also a female,provided a different set of perspectives that complemented what we hadlearned from the first. A third participant, a Korean male, was added becausewe identified him as the most different in the class from the other twoparticipants. A fourth participant, a male, was finally selected to maximizethe differences among the students involved in the study. Thus, theparticipants came from different ethnic (white American and Korean) andhome backgrounds (wealthy professional to the not rich and those workingto support themselves at university). The participants included bothconservative and critical people who wanted not only to change classroomsand the school system, but also to be agents of social reform, especially inregard to issues related to ethnic and social equity. Indeed, these fourparticipants projected the diversity and richness of the backgrounds andexperiences of the class.

To ensure that the findings of the study were dependable and credible, ahermeneutic-dialectical approach was employed so that the expressedopinions of all major stakeholders formed the key data source in the study(Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Because of our method of selection, we did notuse data to show typical student perceptions of their learning environments,but to show the diversity of student perceptions.

The main data sources in the study were the participants posts to thevarious functions of the CCL (e.g. for example, the Notice Boards, the CriticalReviews, the Conferences and the DJs), responses to a questionnaire sentby email, and interviews conducted by Goh with the student participantsand the teacher. The texts from the CCL included posts over a period oftwo semesters and students evaluations at the end of the course. A set ofquestions was sent out by electronic mail to each of the participants afters/he consented to be part of the study. After the written responses to thesequestions were received by Goh, she conducted interviews with theparticipants to clarify further their perceptions of the CCL as a learningenvironment and their involvement in the course. The use of numeroussources of electronic data and follow-up interviews ensured that eachassertion was supported by different types of data (e.g. interviews, differentgenres of text from the CCL, the teachers written narrative about the useof the CCL in the course, and the ways in which each student participated).


Having completed this part of the process of data collection, the data werethen coded in accordance with the three qualitative clusters identified byTobin (1999) in an earlier study. These three clusters are emancipatoryactivities, co-participatory activities, and qualia.

5. PERCEPTIONS OF THE CCL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

This section presents the students perceptions of the CCL learningenvironment within the framework of three clusters, each illustrated withexcerpts from the students written or oral responses. The CCL learningenvironment from the teachers perspective is also discussed. Finally, acomparison of the students and teachers perspectives is provided toillustrate the extent to which the teacher and students had similar perceptionsof the learning environment associated with the use of the CCL.

5.1. Students PerspectivesThe major cluster of students perceptions relate to emancipatory activities.Other clusters pertain to co-participatory activities and the qualia ofparticipants.

5.1.1. Emancipatory ActivitiesData in this category were classified as convenience, efficiency and autonomy.Convenience refers to the access to readings and materials posted on thevarious components of the CCL. Efficiency relates to the use of limitedavailable time to access the CCL when students had something of value tocontribute to the learning community. Autonomy concerns students takingcontrol of their own learning. Examples include accessing the CCL whenstudents felt the need or desire, shaping the class along selected lines bydiscussing topics or issues of their own choice, and having the freedomto express points of view regarding any issue or dilemma.

There was frequent mention that convenience was an importantcharacteristic of the CCL. It was stated that the CCL provided very easyaccess. I could do it any time when free between midnight and 2:00 a.m. asIm extremely busy working and coping with classes. However, there wereindications of initial difficulty of access and use of the CCL. The systemwas new and not as user-friendly as it might have been. Undoubtedly,convenience was perceived when the computer program functioned welland the students became accustomed to the procedures for connecting tothe CCL and had access to computers to engage in the process.


The following comment indicates the degree of efficiency provided bythe computer program: The CCL is incredibly efficient. It is a web-sitefor everyone to write about on a topic, read about what others have to sayor contribute, take an opinion, reflect on practices.

In response to a question about which component of the CCL was mostbeneficial to their learning, the general feeling was best summed up in thisexcerpt:

I dont think that one component was particularly stronger than another. As I describedthem, each was lacking something, and they complemented each other well. From some,I learned the most from figuring out my own thoughts (conferences, critical reviews) and,from the others, I learned most from reading others ideas, sharing my opinions andchanging my own (albeit only slightly!). I think that there was an excellent balance betweenwhole-class, small-group and individual communication.

Additional insights on the efficiency of the CCL were gleaned from thevariation of the critiques given below. The value of the CCL connection wasdependent on the timeliness and responsiveness of interactions betweenparticipants:

The value of the DJs is dependent on the participants. I have been in active DJs that arecool, but Ive also been in dead DJs. That is frustrating. . . . In terms of group therapy,a functional DJ is irreplaceable!

Though the CCL can be regarded as an efficient tool of learning by many,it must be borne in mind that not all learners (i.e. the student teachers) willfind it so as each is an individual and has his/her own preferred learningstyle. While some might relish working on the computer, others wouldprefer direct personal contact as indicated in the following example: I didnot think it (Notice Board) was a good forum to discuss certain issuesbecause I prefer to do that face-to-face when there is a more immediatefeedback and further discussion.

The focus of the above critique is on the dynamism of face-to-faceinteraction that the student concerned preferred rather than the asynchronousnature of communicating through the CCL. Asynchronous communicationalso generated a degree of frustration and tedium when the on-linecommunication was neither prompt enough nor of sufficient interest andquality.

The CCL is conceptualized as a means of promoting autonomy oflearning among the students. From the expressions of the students, it isapparent that this goal was realized. The following excerpt depicts theextent of learner autonomy as well as the critical and reflective nature ofthe student teacher:


We really felt in control of our class, and that our ideas were important. Of course, in thiscourse, they were. And they should have been. We needed a forum to talk about our ownideas with others, get feedback and rework them, rather than write them down, think theyare wonderful and receive a grade for our writing skills.

Yet another testimony of autonomy in learning is given below and it wasall the more significant as it was written by a conservative student teacherwho appeared to relish using the on-line means of learning after he hadgrown accustomed to using the computer:

Students had autonomy in learning. First, students initially could take any point of viewto discuss. Second, during the spring semester, students could choose their own topics.The students shape the class with the teacher as facilitator.

From the variety of student responses concerning emancipatory activities,it is evident that convenience and efficiency are possible when the CCL isaccessible to students, and that the participants are interactive and contributehigh-quality postings to perturb the learning of participants in the community.Students perceptions suggest that autonomy was a characteristic of learningenvironments associated with the use of the CCL.

5.1.2. Co-Participatory ActivitiesCo-participatory activities contained the somewhat overlapping categoriesof flexibility, reflection, quality, interaction, feedback and collaboration.Comments made by the students indicated that the teacher was flexible,maybe too flexible on occasions, and very often was willing to listen tostudents requests, meet their needs and, within reasonable limits, to negotiateaspects of the enacted curriculum. One student noted that he spent anincredible amount of time, more than anyone else, in making the systemwork and was accommodating to students needs.

There was, indisputably, a vast amount of reflection being fostered bythe thinking, evaluating, reflecting, taking a stand, composing ideas inwriting and responding to critiques of ones own postings. A hallmark ofco-participation using the CCL was the process of reflecting on onesreadings, actions and practices and reflecting on classmates ideas. Apartfrom considerable reflecting on words and action, the quality of the on-line postings was also recognized as advantageous. One student believedthat using the web allowed people to speak their ideas more freely due toits lack of face-to-face contact. Some people are often very intimidated inthat respect.

While one student expressed a preference for the dynamism of face-to-face interaction, others favored initial time for thinking and subsequent


composing of responses on-line to bring forth more credible and higher-quality contributions.

In addition, the quantity and quality of the interaction, sometimes ratherintense and characteristic of an interactive medium, generated by responsesto the different parts of the CCL (like the Notice Boards and DJs) wereperceived by the students as positive and interesting. The DJs provided acomfortable small-group arena for interacting with a few peers who wereknown and could be relied on for support:

All members were good participants in that they explored new topics, and brought fresh ideasto the group. Though our participation fluctuated, I was always satisfied by the quality ofeffort that my classmates and I were putting into the posts. I think that we took the DJ seriously.

Another crucial dimension provided in the CCL is feedback in the form ofteacher and peer evaluation. Prompt and honest feedback is very necessaryto learning and improvement and the essence was captured in the followingremarks: I love getting the instructors comments and comments from mypeers . . . It keeps me in line! Also, it is nice to get continuous feedback onmy work and how others feel about the quality of work. Collaborationamong students was another indication of a positive and supportive learningenvironment and the extent of it happening among the student teachers wasmore than echoed in these words: Definitely! Even if you are an artteacher! It promotes collaboration, paper review, technology, and soundresearch methods!

From the rich and frank comments gathered through the electronic datasources, the students evidently found that the CCL provided them with anon-line learning tool that made them increasingly reflective, interactive andcollaborative. This leads to consideration of the quality of the CCL as aneffective learning tool.

5.1.3. QualiaAfter examining the on-line databases and the electronic mail responses ofthe students, there was evidence of interest, enjoyment and satisfactionexperienced by them. The Notice Boards were very interesting over twosemesters, though at times a student could be overwhelmed if he/she wereto miss accessing the CCL for several days. Writing or posting to the CCLalso had its gratification and dissatisfaction. One student commented in theon-line end-of-course evaluation:

Wonderful!!!! I love the Notice Boards. They offered a place that did not have to be totallystructured and scholarly. Although they could be scholarly, they were more a place for heateddebates and discussions or just plain venting. I loved using them and reading them.


On the other hand, the following written comment showed simultaneouslythe sense of frustration with the asynchronous nature of the CCL and yet theenjoyment of contributing to the conference as a critic: When I finally didget to write for the conference, I enjoyed it. In a way similar to the CriticalReviews, I was frustrated with banal ideas or superficial explanations.

There was recognition among the students that their on-line participationwas at times inconsistent (due often to work or other personal commitments),yet this had not really affected the quality of their reflection and collaboration.Their interest and satisfaction with what they posted on the CCL wasindicative of their motivation to become teachers.

Another comment worthy of mention and supporting the positive feelingsabout the qualia associated with the use of the CCL was that not only werethe resources on the web supportive of learning but: This method ofcommunicating was extremely worthwhile. It was an excellent way to spendtime outside of class on homework.

But there were also warning signs posted by another student regardingthe time and effort that he had to put in the CCL. He perceived that theCCL entailed much more effort and time:

The web-site was a useful learning tool, but it should have been more in conjunction withwhat went on in class in terms of discussions, etc. I felt like I was taking two courses, onein a classroom and one on the web.

There was also some feeling that the nature and functions of certain partsof the CCL could be modified and made more effective. For example, itemerged from the data that there were perceptions of overlap in eithercontent or functions of the Notice Boards, the DJs and the Critical Reviews.This gave rise to adverse comments such as:

I thought the conferences were a mere re-hash of the critical reviews except for the factthat we had to do them in groups. Yet, I found them to be completely redundant becausewe had the critical reviews anyway.

During the interview, another student mentioned this criticism of perceivedredundancy of the DJs:

I found the DJs to be the least effective portion of the web-site. It was here that we weresupposed to have ongoing, daily conversations with a few of our classmates covering a widerange of school-related topics. The problem was that we were already having theseconversations (in the lounge, on the street, or in the classroom) and what was put into the DJwas merely a partial recreation of a much more elaborate conversation. I found this to be veryredundant and felt that we could use our time much more constructively to move toward ourgoals.


In addition, the excerpt also revealed that the group was very active. Membersmet often outside class to continue their debates or discussions on what hadtranspired in class. The personal contact was present and a valued source oflearning. Therefore, the need to put what had already been discussed in acondensed form over the web led to feelings of redundancy and tedium.

There were inevitably some feelings of frustration and exasperation whenthe CCL did not function as smoothly as anticipated initially. Because theCCL was being used for the first time in this teacher education program,there is an opportunity for the computer system to be fine-tuned with furtheruse. The science group of student teachers had experience with the CCLfrom the fall semester and, by the spring semester, they had considerablymore expertise with the computer-based interactive program. The frustrationwhich they encountered initially also was faced by the mathematics studentswho joined the class in the spring semester. Thus, there was dissatisfactionamong these few students as they learned to use the CCL.

5.1.4. Professional DevelopmentAfter thorough examination of the available sources of data from thestudents, the dimension of professional development stood out notably.Though there were some perceptions of redundancy in having all the DJs,Critical Reviews and Conferences during the spring semester, a closerscrutiny of student responses over two semesters revealed a growth in thematurity of their ideas, levels of participation and quality of the contributions.The following description given by a student during an interview illustratesthe maturity of thought from a fresh student teacher to an enthusiasticteacher capable of looking beyond the confines of grades and self-interest:

The CCL forces students to read, reflect, evaluate and take a stand. Theres the initialreflection on what to write, thinking of the potential value of a posting, being brave towrite honestly, reflecting on own work, taking a stand, peer evaluation, and re-evaluatingself. Theres an added dimension to learning through the Internet.

Throughout the year, we all got better at critical reviews. We got better at reading them,reviewing them, and writing them. As we improved, we were better able to extract criticalinformation or ideas pertinent to us. In the second semester, we could read any articlepertaining to a particular topic. This made reading everyones Critical Reviews moreinteresting!

Another indication of their personal growth and professionalism isembodied in these words:

The experience with the CCL has influenced my development as a teacher. I am inspiredby what my teacher does for me now and would like to do that for my own students infuture. . . . I would also like to try and implement a similar system in my classroom (if I


get one) but I would be concerned about the level of student participation. I believe that,in order for it to be a success at the high school level, it would have to be much lessacademic and much more like a web-site that the students would visit of their own accordin their free time.

In addition, a re-look at the nature and quality of the Notice Boards, CriticalReviews, and DJs over two semesters and the presentations for the twoConferences in the spring semester revealed convincingly the developmentaladvancement of the students involved. In the fall semester, issues discussedwere fewer and of shorter length, and the level was rather embryonic.Moreover, the teacher appeared to make many contributions in terms ofreminders to the few who were inactive, to raise ideas to provoke interactionamong the students and to stimulate responses to reading materials. Therewas a positive change during the spring semester when the students beganmore critical discourses over social issues like kids having kids, equityand funding issues in urban schools, and classroom debates concerninginfluences on student learning, teacher role, commitment and classroommanagement. As one student confidently stated: We need their experience.They need our idealism. We referred to the student teachers themselvesand they referred to the practicing teachers. Students also perceived theusefulness of the web-site as reflected in these electronic interactions: Iappreciate your suggestions. They are fabulous. Let me pick your brainagain. I disagree with your bit of your critical review. The process ofthinking through, evaluating the worth of fellow contributions and then offeringa critique or rejoinder had become part of this learning community and wassustained until the end of the course. Consequently, the teacher did not makehis presence felt as much as in the previous semester and he could be in aback seat position. Still he shared his opinions and feelings with the studentsand provided much support to their ideas with relevant readings.

The two on-line conferences presented on the CCL also deserved specialmention in the context of the professional maturity of students. From thefirst conference Becoming Reflective Practitioners to the secondconference Reforming Urban Schools, there were noticeably threedifferences. First, the second conference was more organized and thoroughin logistics and style of presentation. Second, there was much more studentinput and the discussions were more in-depth. Third, the readings postedby the presenters increased to at least four sources each from either booksor journals. There was obviously a more focused and satisfying engagementon the part of all, including the teacher.

Thus, from all the electronic sources of data and the interviews, it wasapparent that the students perceived cognitive and other benefits tothemselves through their use of the CCL. Undoubtedly, the computer


application used in this course not only provided the student teachers withan excellent way of learning technology-based, collaborative andinteractive (quoting the words of one of the students), but it also directlyor indirectly lifted them to a higher level of personal growth and profes-sionalism. What then are the teachers perceptions of the CCL learningenvironment that he carefully scripted to enhance his students learning?

5.2. Teachers PerspectivesThe teacher designed the CCL around the use of technology to improvethe quality of the education of practicing and prospective science andmathematics teachers. The application was used as the primary source oflearning in distance learning courses and to augment on-campus courses(Tobin, 1998, 1999, in press). Fundamentally, the teacher believed thattechnology could be used to create a community in which individualsinteract in ways that produce resources for the learning of all participants.He endeavored to create a computer-based application to maximize learningby interacting in communities, and thereby encouraging co-participationto emerge and be sustained. This led to the evolution of the CCL as newfeatures were added and refined to meet the changing needs of studentsengaged in off-campus and on-campus learning.

The teacher felt that, with the provision of autonomy, it was possible forstudents to pursue their own goals and thereby more easily to connect theirextant knowledge and interests to what is to be learned. Through the use ofthe CCL, students had access to most of the written texts produced by theteacher and peers and students could interact in numerous ways with all orselected participants. He believed that learning was enhanced when someof the interactions were public and others were confined to selectedindividuals. Furthermore, the critical reviews and the associated critiques,from self, peers and the instructor, served as learning resources for allparticipants. The private reviews also were of potential benefit both to thewriters of the reviews and the critics. Thus, this made possible the creationof a learning community characterized by critical discourse.

With respect to the emphasis on reflection, the public texts and associatedresponses were objects for reflection on a variety of levels. There are twoaspects to reflection that pertain to the use of the CCL. First, the communityconcept leads to many texts being available as resources. Second, theasynchronous nature of the interactions provides time for thinking. This isa form of wait time that has the potential to facilitate learning. Participantshad opportunities to review texts, construct a response, reflect on it, dowhatever editing was deemed appropriate, and then post a rejoinder. It is


not desirable for the time between posts (i.e. that comprise an interaction)to be too long. This was a problem with the use of functions such as theDJs where the relative inactivity of small numbers of students was detrimentalto the participation of a larger number of students. The teacher monitoredthe type and extent of the interactivity and initiated appropriate actions. Forexample, he manipulated membership of DJ groups to encourage interactionby assigning those who interacted regularly to the same groups as others whointeracted regularly, and placing those who rarely interacted into the samegroups. Additionally, he always responded favorably to students requestsfor changes in group membership. From his perception, when the DJsfunctioned as intended, the benefits were very apparent to students.

Feedback was possible using the CCL to an extent that is not possible inregular classrooms. The source of the feedback could be any of the participantsin the community and there were opportunities for public and private feedbackas well. He read the new texts and then compiled his response almostimmediately. This is not necessarily different from his feedback in classes thatdo not employ the CCL and its use did not lead directly to an increase in thequality of feedback. However, use of the CCL enabled him to respond to morematerial than in regular courses and the quality of his responses was at leastequivalent to on-campus courses that did not employ the CCL. Feedback alsowas available from self and peer assessment.

The teacher also noted that students tended not to value the self-assessments and therefore it is necessary for him to educate them betterconcerning their potential educative value. In a context of heavy workloads,the self-assessments were not done by most students until the end of thecourse and, as a consequence, became just another necessary evil, ratherthan a significant resource to promote reflection and learning.

Some tedium was associated with students having to engage regularly inwhat they regarded as monotonous activities that developed what theyperceived to be sameness. Some students did not share the same passionfor the course content as the teacher did and this lack of dedicationsometimes surfaced as boredom and frustration. A further source offrustration related to enhancements to the CCL throughout the year and achange to the server on which the CCL resides. Although all of the changeswere intended to improve the speed or functionality of the CCL, the technicalupgrades were sometimes associated with temporary setbacks resultingin the loss of work and, for the students concerned, high levels of frustration.Although these setbacks were disappointing to everyone in the community,they were of short duration and relatively infrequent.

The instructor valued face-to-face and asynchronous interaction. Duringclass time, he struggled to implement productive small-group interactions


and to elicit useful input from students during whole-class interactivediscussions. This was to little avail. The quality of classroom contributionsfrom students was disappointing. Although he discussed this with studentsand continually changed his approach to the manner in which class sessionswere conducted, he was not satisfied with the quality of most of thecontributions from the students. For the most part, the students appearedto arrive at class unprepared for scholarly participation. He attributed thisto two main problems. First, they were swamped with assignments arisingfrom their student teaching and they had to prepare lessons and to read andassess their students work. Second, they were fatigued from arduous daysas a teacher and lacked the enthusiasm for a two-hour class. The teachersdissatisfaction with the class led to a determination that the quality of theinteractions on the CCL would be even better. He regarded the assignmentson the CCL as potentially better learning activities because students couldparticipate when they had time to reflect in a clear-headed manner and theenergy to engage with motivation.

After a slow start in the second semester, all of the mathematics educationstudents began to use the CCL appropriately and only two of the scienceeducation students did not participate appropriately. These two differed intheir participation patterns. One did not engage at all in the entire twosemesters. However, he also was late to class and lax in meeting othercommitments. His level of computer literacy was low and he did not havethe confidence to develop the skills to access the Internet in a dependableway or to use the functions of the CCL. A second science education studentwas struggling in the field and most of his energy was related to dealing withinterpersonal conflicts involving his cooperating teacher, supervisor and thestudents. In each semester, he completed his requirements on the CCLbelatedly and after the student teaching was in recess. Obviously his patternsof interaction did not contribute to the community of learners and hiscomments were of little value as learning resources for others. The failureof these two individuals to participate in DJs detracted from their utility toothers in their DJ groups.

There needs to be a strong awareness of the connection betweenautonomy and responsibility. During the year, the students had considerableautonomy and, as was noted earlier, perhaps the teacher was at times tooflexible. He did not insist that students met deadlines because he regardedit as their responsibility to adhere to timelines and to meet their professionalresponsibilities. However, there were aspects of their participation in the CCLthat students did not take seriously. If grades were not tied to particularmodes of participation, they came to be regarded as optional and somestudents engaged sporadically. For example, peer- and self-assessment often


was done belatedly and the quality of those posts was less than desirable.Yet these modes of participation are potentially powerful ways to learn. Theinstructor is now very much aware of the importance of making sure thatall students understand how each of the functions works, their roles aslearners in each function, and reasons for engaging in those roles in the waysthat have been built into the structure of the CCL.

5.3. Differences and Similarities Between Teachers and StudentsBoth the teacher and the students perceived that the CCL enables studentsto collaborate and provides a basis for them to understand better oneanothers perspectives than often is the case in class. Students are able tointeract one-on-one with anybody in the community and choose their owngroups and the extent to which their texts are private or public. Differentfunctions appeal to different students in the program. Some consider theDJs as most beneficial to their learning whereas others do not perceiveinteractions in the DJs as valuable. Similarly, some students do not perceivethe Notice Boards as useful, whereas others use them for a variety ofpurposes and post texts to enhance the learning of themselves and others.Both teacher and students perceived interaction patterns to improve throughthe use of the CCL to enable all students to interact with the whole class, insmall groups, with selected individuals, and with the teacher.

Furthermore, the CCL allowed participants to communicate when theyhad the time and when they felt that they had something of value to say. Inaddition, the participants were in some way forced to read, think, and thenbegin to formulate a response. Autonomy of learning was provided forlearners to interact and communicate at their convenience. The CCL was aprincipal means of participating in the course and the only resource forstudents for submitting materials for assessment. Likewise, students also feltthat there was much convenience, efficiency and autonomy of learning aslong as the CCL functioned smoothly and they had access to a computer.

It was clear from various data sources that the students did not have thesame consistent level of interest in some educational topics (like urbaneducation) as the teacher did and, as a consequence, some of them failedto appreciate the probing for deeper and finer levels of understanding. Also,the Critical Reviews work better when there is a text or a set of papers tocritique. In the second semester, themes were used and the result was littlediscernible difference between the Critical Reviews and the Conferences.Therefore, students either felt that the DJs, the Conferences or the CriticalReviews were redundant and that there was excessive demand to keep upwith postings on the web-site. Teacher expectations were high and at times


students did not meet them. After all, there were probably other competingdemands for their time than just academic ones. Much reflection was done inthe process of attending to the CCL demands and the teacher hoped to strikea harmonious balance between requiring too much or too little of his students.

In spite of the times when demands for participating and collaboratingbecame overwhelming, the students perceptions of the learning environ-ments associated with the CCL were insightful and encouraging. One studentremarked: Its hard to isolate one component because they all work togetherto build this network. The CCL networked the class together very good.This is in addition to the three-hour class.

The teacher, as architect of the CCL, felt that this Internet tool enhancedthe quality of learning and made possible the large degree of interactionbetween himself and the class and among members of the class. The studentsalso felt similarly. During an interview, one student said: Overall I feel asthough the CCL web-site enhanced our experience in class and allowed usto cover a broader range of topics than would have been possible otherwise.He further volunteered to evaluate the CCL in this manner:

On a 1 to 10 rating, I would rate the usefulness of the CCL as a learning tool at 8. Veryefficient and good. This is a noble experiment by him . . . I would like to see it continuedin a more refined way. It should be extended to the whole program as it makes for betterinteraction and communication among students and with the staff, including supervisors.

As for rapport between teacher and students, both parties felt that therewas an enviable degree of closeness and mutual support. While the teacherremarked that there was consistently very good rapport with his class, thestudents also reciprocated that feeling as reflected in excerpts frominterviews. Excellent rapport with him! Hes receptive to students needs he canceled conference sessions after learning that we were drowningwith work. He modified his requirements hes flexible. Another studentcommented: Absolutely, theres a connection between the learners andbetween instructor and class.

The students who were actively engaged on the CCL network felt thatthe web-site was a good learning environment as it made them reflectiveand interactive. They also enjoyed the experience and found it particularlysatisfying when their peers responded promptly and adequately. On the otherhand, those who were not as accustomed to using the computer applicationfelt that it was taking up too much time and that it was not as dynamic andimmediate as face-to-face classroom interaction. This individual preferenceof personal versus on-line learning was understandable, but it should not bean excuse for non-participation or unwillingness to experiment with anothermeans of learning, albeit an impersonal one.


6. CONCLUSION

The CCL, as a high-quality learning tool and a method of lesson delivery,made both teacher and students connect better and work closer with oneanother. The emancipatory activities of convenience, efficiency andautonomy of learning were achieved to a large extent, taking cognizance ofthe occasional technical bugs. Co-participatory activities came about largelyas a result of students efforts to match the diverse modes of collaboration,reflection, feedback and evaluation built into the CCL. Some students werestimulated enough to desire to be in the loop. Even though some studentsfelt frustrated when things did not go well for them or when they werehighly constrained by time, they knew that they had benefited in manyways from the network generated through the CCL. The various electronicsources of data and interviews indicated improvement and enrichment ofstudent learning coupled with professional growth through their use of theCCL. In this teacher education program, the use of the CCL made availablebetter-quality student interaction, collaboration, reflection and feedback inan electronic learning environment that integrated convenience, efficiencyand autonomy of learning. As in all learning environments, the CCL cannotmeet the needs of all learners. However, it satisfies and generates a senseof confidence among those who adapted well to its use.

Many institutions are employing Internet applications in teaching andlearning situations to create virtual communities of learners with theexpectation that education will be cheaper. Our experience in this study isconsistent with earlier studies using the CCL (Tobin, 1998, 1999, in press).Students reported working harder than in courses that did not use the CCLand the teacher also reported higher levels of time being required to readand respond to student texts. Although it does appear as if the learningenvironment is much richer and learning is enhanced, the costs also appearto be higher.

As is the case in any learning environment, it is necessary for allparticipants to know what are appropriate and inappropriate ways in whichto engage. In the case of the CCL, a plethora of new roles for both teachersand students emerged as the functions were developed and applied incontexts not previously experienced by either the teacher or students. Co-participation was a hallmark of the interactions because power differentialswere virtually non-existent. As the discourse evolved over a two-semesterperiod, each participant established niches in which the other participantsgranted them authority. Accordingly, all participants were teachers and allwere learners. The CCL could be even more successful if the communityas a whole assumed responsibility for the participation of all students and


teachers rather than resorting to the traditional authority relationships thatconsider it as the teachers responsibility to prod students who are notengaging to the extent they should. The quality of learning undoubtedly canbe enhanced if all participants reinforce the significance of high-qualityengagement and being academically prepared for participation whether theparticipation involves the use of a computer or face-to-face verbal interaction.

This study has confirmed the significance of autonomy, co-participation,and qualia as significant dimensions of the learning environment associatedwith the CCL. In addition, the analyses indicate that the CCL considerablyenhances opportunities for the professional development of teachers.Subsequent reflections on the similarities and differences between theperceptions of the teacher and students suggest that responsibility also is asalient dimension of the learning environment. These dimensions appeal assignificant foci for additional research using the CCL and for all studies oflearning environments. In order to assess the comparative quality of the CCLand other interactive computer-associated learning environments, it isprobably useful now to develop and validate a widely-applicable surveyinstrument suitable for administration to large groups of students to measuretheir preferred and perceived perceptions of autonomy, responsibility, co-participation, qualia and professional development. The availability of suchan instrument would enable studies of learning environments associated withthe CCL to be compared to those pertaining to traditional courses and forstudies of the differing contexts in which teacher education occurs.

REFERENCES

Admiraal, W.F., Lockhorst, D., Wubbels, T., Korthagen, F.A.J. & Veen, W. (1998). Com-puter-mediated communication environments in teacher education: computer conferencingand the supervision of student teachers. Learning Environments Research, 1, 5974.

Fraser, B.J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and applica-tions. Learning Environments Research, 1, 15.

Gee, J.P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. New York:Falmer Press.

Glasersfeld, E. von. (1995). Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning.Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Lemke, J.L. (1995). Textual politics: discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor &Francis.

Lorsbach, A.W. & Basolo, F. Jr. (1998). Collaborating in the evolution of a middle schoolscience learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 115127.

Roth, W.-M. (1998). Teacher-as-researcher reform: student achievement and perceptionsof learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7593.


Rowe, M.B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence inlanguage, logic, and fate control: part one wait time. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 11, 8194.

Rowe, M.B. (1983). Getting chemistry off the killer course list. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 60, 954956.

Schn, D. (1985). The design studio. London: RIBA Publications.Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learn-

ing environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293302.Templeton, R.A. & Johnson, C.E. (1998). Making the school environment safe: Red Roses

formula. Learning Environments Research, 1, 733.Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educa-

tional Research, 57, 6995.Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Tobin, K. (1998). Qualitative perceptions of learning environments on the World Wide Web.

Learning Environment Research, 1, 139162.Tobin, K. (1999). The Internet as a tool for the reform of science teacher education:

transformative agent or catalyst for cultural reproduction? [C. Ormes, Trans.] Enseanzade las Ciencias, 17, 155164.

Tobin, K. (in press). Learning to teach science using the Internet to connect communitiesof learners. In P. Taylor, P. Gilmer & K. Tobin (Eds.), Transforming undergraduatescience teaching: social constructivist perspectives. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer.

Waxman, H.C. & Huang, S.-Y.L. (1998). Classroom learning environments in urbanelementary, middle and high schools. Learning Environments Research, 1, 95113.

SWEE CHIEW GOH KENNETH TOBINNational Institute of Education Graduate School of EducationNanyang Technological University University of Pennsylvania469 Bukit Timah Road 3700 Walnut StreetSingapore 259756 Philadelphia PA 191046216,Singapore USA(Correspondence to: Kenneth Tobin)

Documents

Student and Teacher Perspectives in Computer-Mediated Learning Environments in Teacher Education