Download pdf - A Constructivist Model of Mentoring, Coaching, and Facilitating Online Discussions

This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]On: 17 September 2013, At: 03:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Distance EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

A Constructivist Model of Mentoring,Coaching, and Facilitating OnlineDiscussionsKaren L. Murphy a , Sue E. Mahoney b , Chun‐Ying Chen c , Noemi

V. Mendoza‐Diaz d & Xiaobing Yang d

a Western New Mexico University, USAb University of Houston‐Downtown, Texas, USAc Transworld Institute of Technology, Taiwand Texas A&M University, USAPublished online: 19 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Karen L. Murphy , Sue E. Mahoney , Chun‐Ying Chen , Noemi V. Mendoza‐Diaz& Xiaobing Yang (2005) A Constructivist Model of Mentoring, Coaching, and Facilitating OnlineDiscussions, Distance Education, 26:3, 341-366

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910500291454

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910500291454

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Distance EducationVol. 26, No. 3, November 2005, pp. 341–366

ISSN 0158-7919 (print); 1475-0198 (online)/05/030341–26© 2005 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.DOI 10.1080/01587910500291454

A Constructivist Model of Mentoring, Coaching, and Facilitating Online Discussions

Karen L. Murphya*, Sue E. Mahoneyb, Chun-Ying Chenc, Noemi V. Mendoza-Diazd and Xiaobing YangdaWestern New Mexico University, USA; bUniversity of Houston-Downtown, Texas, USA; cTransworld Institute of Technology, Taiwan; dTexas A&M University, USATaylor and Francis LtdCDIE_A_129128.sgm10.1080/01587910500291454Distance Education0158-7919 (print)/1475-0198 (online)Original Article2005Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.263000000November 2005KarenMurphySchool of EducationWestern New Mexico [email protected]

This case study of an online graduate course determines the message characteristics of the instruc-tor, volunteer teaching assistants, and students in online discussions, and proposes a mentoring,coaching, and facilitating model for online discussions. The researchers developed a coding systembased on the literature of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating to identify the characteristics ofconference discussion messages. The instructor fostered the development of volunteer teachingassistants into coaches and of student discussion facilitators into facilitators of learning. Theproposed constructivist model fosters active learning, provides scaffolding for students to becomefacilitators of learning, and suggests creative ways for online instructors to manage different typesof teaching responsibilities. Recommendations for further research are included.

Introduction

Online courses have become the hallmark of university-level distance teaching in theUnited States. Many higher education institutions acknowledge online education asa critical long-term strategy (Allen & Seaman, 2003). Severe challenges exist foronline learners who are not necessarily familiar with online technologies or knowhow to collaborate in online groups while participating in constructivist learningenvironments (Hara & Kling, 1999; Murphy & Cifuentes, 2001). Challenges alsoexist for instructors, who are caught in the role shift from content expert to facilitatorof learning, a shift that has precipitated a change from teacher-centered to learner-centered instruction (Gunawardena, 1992). With this role shift, online teaching has

*Corresponding author. School of Education, Western New Mexico University, P.O. Box 680,Silver City, NM 88062, USA. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13

342 K. L. Murphy et al.

redefined instructors’ schedules, duties, and relationships with students. Some insti-tutions have developed policies for instructors to reply to all online student emailwithin a set time (Waterhouse & Rogers, 2004), whereas anecdotal evidence showsthat many online instructors have “an obsession when it comes to their onlinecourses—a mixture of curiosity and a sense that if they don’t keep logging on, theymight fall hopelessly behind” (Young, 2002, p. 38).

The push for online courses in higher education has not necessarily been accom-panied by increases in resources (Bates, 2000). Indeed, the quality, quantity, andaccessibility of materials available to online instructors are inadequate (Hara &Kling, 1999). A typical university online teaching model is for an instructor to use acourse management system delivered via the Internet. Such systems allow theinstructor to post the syllabus and other learning materials, and provide for commu-nication with and among the students. Students may also have access to technicalassistance via a help desk, and large enrollment courses may have teaching assistants(TAs) or other types of assistance during the semester. More fortunate onlineinstructors receive support with course design and technical assistance prior to thebeginning of the semester.

Other models of online teaching and learning exist. Downes’ (1998) triad model ofonline learning identifies three key players: the student, the instructor, and the facil-itator. In this model, the role of the student is to learn; the instructor plays three majorroles—a facilitator of learning, content-area specialist, and evaluator; and the facilitatorprovides technical support, advocates for students, and mentors students by providingsupport and encouragement, along with study skills and time-management training.In the Stover et al. (2000) Teaching Teams Model, the key players are the instructor,TAs, and undergraduate preceptors who are hired as role models for their peers.

Many instructors use social constructivism to promote student-centered and activelearning. Social constructivist conceptions of learning assume that knowledgeconstruction is achieved by the interaction that takes place within oneself throughreflective thinking and by the interaction that occurs in communications and collab-oration with other people (Vygotsky, 1978). Collaborative learning through interac-tion with others requires learners to engage actively in idea exchange and meaningnegotiation by looking at and reflecting on the multiple perspectives of fellow students.

Instructors may invest inordinate amounts of time and energy in designing andteaching online classes that require students to be self-directed and have authenticexperiences, which “present the same type of cognitive challenges as those in thereal world” (Jonassen, 1999, p. 221). Such experiences include interactive activitiessuch as small-group discussions, simulation games, project-based work, and collab-orative problem-solving activities to solve educational problems (Romiszowski &Mason, 1996). Without adequate resources to create and teach in this manner, theonline instructor must establish creative ways to manage different types of teachingresponsibilities.

To help meet the challenges of online students and instructors, this case studyintroduces a model to mentor and coach students’ facilitation of online discussions.This online discussion model is designed to accomplish three tasks: to foster active

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Mentoring, Coaching, and Facilitating Model for Online Discussions 343

learning among students by empowering them to step out of the passive learningrole; to provide a framework to help students become facilitators of learning; and toallow online instructors to reduce their load through creative management of theirteaching responsibilities.

Theoretical Perspectives

The theoretical underpinnings of this study about online discussions are socialconstructivism and its corollaries—mentoring, coaching, and facilitating.

Social Constructivism

The pedagogical rationale for online discussion is social constructivism, or sociocul-tural theory, in which individuals create or construct knowledge by attempting tobring meaning to new information and to integrate this knowledge with their priorexperience in their communication with others (Vygotsky, 1978). Building on socialconstructivism, cognitive apprenticeship theory (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989)emphasizes two issues: a method aimed primarily at teaching the process thatexperts use to handle complex tasks; and a focus of the “learning-through-guided-experience” (Collins et al., p. 457) on cognitive and metacognitive skills andprocesses, rather than on physical ones. Collins et al.’s core teaching methods—modeling, coaching, and scaffolding—are designed to help learners acquire an“integrated set of cognitive and metacognitive skills through processes of observationand guided and supported practice” (p. 481). Dennen (2002) adds mentoring to thethree core teaching methods of modeling, coaching, and scaffolding.

Modeling, coaching, scaffolding, and mentoring are but some of the terms used todescribe the roles and functions related to teaching, or assisting learning in a socialconstructivist environment. Other terms used in the literature to describe similarfunctions include teaching presence (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001),cognitive presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001), cognitive task structuring(Gallimore & Tharp, 1990), and high-level and low-level mentoring (Angeli,Valanides, & Bonk, 2003). Many terms have overlapping meanings. The followingsections focus on the concepts of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating as used insocial constructivist learning environments. Following each description is ourdefinition of the term.

Mentoring

Mentoring functions are “those aspects of a developmental relationship that enhanceboth individuals’ growth and advancement” (Kram, 1983, p. 622). Dennen (2002)defines a mentor as “one who mediates expert knowledge for novices, helping thatwhich is tacit to become more explicit” (p. 817). The many definitions of mentoringare related to the social constructivist model of cognitive apprenticeship and oftenincorporate collaboration, interaction, modeling, scaffolding, and communities of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


practice. Mentoring relationships are usually hierarchical, one-on-one, and occur invaried environments: business and industry, higher education, and schools. Amentor supports the development of a learner, which includes helping the learnergain the necessary skills and knowledge to function effectively in a given environ-ment (Daloz, 1999).

Mentoring support takes the form of expert-to-novice transfer of professionalinformation or life lessons from within a particular field such as teacher education(Price & Chen, 2003). As a result, mentors guide learners into a specific communityof practice, thereby allowing the learners, through legitimate peripheral participation(Lave & Wenger, 1991), to evolve into practitioners in a given field. Our definitionof mentoring is:

A one-on-one relationship between an expert and a novice in which the expert guidesthe novice by behavioral and cognitive modeling, academic and career counseling,emotional and scholarly support, advice, professional networking, and assessment.

Coaching

According to Perkins (1992), coaching based on the cognitive apprenticeship model(Collins et al., 1989) should be used to guide learners in developing task managementskills. Online learners often need assistance in establishing strategies for managing theirtime (Hill, 2001), particularly in constructivist environments, which require learnersto be their own task managers (Vrasidas & McIsaac, 1999). A coach typically helpsothers in meeting a particular goal (Parsloe & Wray, 2000, as cited in Dennen, 2002).

Coaching may be solicited by the learner seeking help, and it may be unsolicitedwhen the coach “observes performance and provides encouragement, diagnosis,directions, and feedback” (Jonassen, 1999, p. 233). Jonassen suggests four kinds ofcoaching in a constructivist learning environment: provide motivational prompts,monitor and regulate the learner’s performance, provoke reflection, and perturblearners’ models. He maintains that the most important role of the coach is the secondkind: to monitor, analyze, and regulate skill development of learners. The fourth kindof coaching, perturbing learners’ models, is critical for changing the mental modelsof naïve learners. Keller’s (1983) ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence, and satis-faction) motivational model describes the sequence of motivational events, whereasKeller and Kopp (1987) extended these concepts by suggesting specific motivationalstrategies. Our definition of coaching is:

Observing learner performance and providing encouragement, diagnosis, directions,and feedback. Specifically, coaching involves providing motivational prompts, monitor-ing, and regulating learner performance, provoking reflection, and perturbing learners’models.

Facilitating

Facilitating, or moderating online discussion and learning typically encompassesfour types of activities: technical, pedagogical, managerial, and social (Berge, 1995).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Technical activities center around helping students learn to function and feelcomfortable in the online environment, such as helping students get online andresolve technical problems with their hardware and software (Winograd, 2001).Pedagogical activities focus on mindfully engaging the learner throughout a course.Managerial activities address the process from an organizational, procedural, oradministrative standpoint, including “setting the agenda for the conference: theobjectives of the discussion, the timetable, procedural rules, and decision-makingnorms” (Berge, ¶9). Social activities create a friendly, social environment forstudents by promoting human relationships, developing group cohesiveness, andmaintaining the group as a unit. Our definition of facilitating is:

Providing technical, pedagogical, managerial, and social activities that maintainsustained and authentic communication between and among instructors and students.

The present study focuses on the following roles in an online class: the instruc-tor’s guiding role, the teaching assistants’ monitoring and regulating role, and thestudent facilitators’ discussion facilitation role. We refer to the teaching assistantsas TAs; to the student facilitators in online discussions as facilitators or cofacilita-tors; to the student-as-participants in online discussions as discussion participants;and to all learners in the sample online class as students. We asked these researchquestions:

1. What are characteristics of messages posted by the instructor, teaching assis-tants, and students in online discussions?

2. What is the nature of a model for mentoring, coaching, and facilitating learningin online discussions?

Method

Course Context

The semester-long online graduate course about the foundations of distance learn-ing took place at a large university in the southwestern United States in fall 2002.Throughout the semester, the 21 students accessed course information from theWeb site on WebCT™ and communicated via FirstClass™ computer conferencingsoftware. FirstClass™ software provides multiple functions that foster collaborativelearning such as threaded discussions in icon-based conferences; file attachments;private email; real-time, text-based chats (Persico & Manca, 2000); and collabora-tive document writing spaces, or whiteboards (Murphy, Cifuentes, & Shih, 2004).The top-level FirstClass™ conferences consisted of eight public conferences andtwo private conferences (see Figure 1).Figure 1. Top-level FirstClass™ conferencesSix 2-week student-facilitated unit discussions accounted for one-half of thefinal grade. For each unit students read the assigned readings and then contrib-uted to threaded online discussions of the readings. To satisfy the discussionrequirement, each student cofacilitated one discussion and participated in the fiveother discussions. Cofacilitators communicated with each other via threaded

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


discussions, supplemented by real-time chats and collaborative documents. Thefacilitator groups organized their responsibilities in varied ways, as each grouphad complete autonomy as to how to conduct the unit discussion. The studentswere separated into one of two threaded discussion groups consisting of 10 or 11students each. The six discussion conferences each consisted of three subconfer-ences—a private conference for the cofacilitators to develop discussion questionsand an action plan for their upcoming unit discussion, and two public confer-ences for discussions of the topics with the participants (see Figure 2 for anexample).Figure 2. FirstClass™ discussions conference exampleThe course design prepared the students for participating in and facilitating mean-ingful discussions related to the course content, and emphasized the expectations forlearning collaboratively. The syllabus explained that evidence of working effectivelyas part of a group is critical to the field of educational technology, and it outlineddiscussion participation requirements based on substantive contributions thattended to be several paragraphs long and included one or both of the followingcharacteristics:

● They demonstrate what you have learned from the readings. Do not merely quoteor repeat an author’s point; your contribution should show that you have given anarticle some serious thought. For example, you may apply a concept taken fromthe readings to reflect on a personal experience, explain a change of opinion, orconnect ideas in new ways.

DiscussionsForms Co-teachersResearchPaper

HowdyCafe Q&A FirstClass InstructorsTalk

Journals

Note: Private Conferences Public Conferences

Online Class

Figure 1. Top-level FirstClass™ conferences

Co-facilitators Group B

Discussions

Unit

Group A

Figure 2. FirstClass™ discussions conference example

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


● They build on the ideas of classmates and enrich the discussion. Presenting well-crafted counter-arguments, elaborating on the nuances involved in an issue, orproviding a poignant example of how a classmate’s point impacted your thinkingare all examples of ways to build substantively on your classmates’ contributions.

To prepare for online participation and group facilitation at the beginning of thesemester, new online students completed four laboratory exercises to ensure thatthey knew how to use FirstClass™. In addition, several activities helped studentsget to know each other while they developed skills with computer conferencing.After reading one of five articles about moderating online discussions, studentswrote a short essay in which they compared face-to-face and computer conferenc-ing discussions, described their anticipated behaviors, and wrote three guidelinesfor facilitating online discussions. To prepare for collaborating with classmates tofacilitate a unit discussion of required readings, students read Severn’s (1998)article about group learning contracts in advance of developing a contract withtheir cofacilitators. At an initial orientation session held face-to-face, accompaniedby streaming video and FirstClass™ chat, each group negotiated member responsi-bilities, learnt how to communicate with each other electronically, scheduled onlinechats, and made plans for facilitating the discussion (Murphy, Mahoney, &Harvell, 2000). Groups recorded those negotiations in their group learningcontracts, posted them to a public FirstClass™ conference, and referred to themduring the semester.

Participants

Participants included the instructor, two TAs, and the 21 students enrolled in theclass. The instructor was an experienced online instructor of educational technologywho had been teaching graduate-level distance and online classes since 1993 andhad been conducting research about distance learning since 1986.

Two female doctoral students volunteered to be TAs in addition to their half-timegraduate assistantships in order to increase their content knowledge and to gainskills in teaching a graduate online class. Both TAs, who elected to assist with thediscussions, were international students. The TAs’ experience ranged from 4 to 12online classes, and they were familiar with the instructor’s teaching style, havingtaken most, or all, of her online classes previously.

The class consisted of 7 doctoral students and 14 masters’ students. Their onlineexperience ranged from none to several online classes, and 12 of the 21students hadtaken at least one online class previously from the same instructor. With one excep-tion, all of the students were in the College of Education.

The eight cofacilitators whose messages were used in the study included sevenfemales and one male; four were doctoral students and four were masters’ students;five were Americans and three were international students (one of whom took thecourse from her country in East Asia). Their previous online experience rangedfrom two cofacilitators with no courses, four cofacilitators with one course, one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


cofacilitator with three courses, and one cofacilitator with four courses. The instruc-tor privately requested the three students who had previously taken an online classwith her to cofacilitate the first unit discussion while acting as role models for theother students.

Data Sources

Data sources were transcripts of selected online conferences. The conference tran-scripts described later included the coteachers private conference, three private unitdiscussion conferences, and three corresponding public unit discussion conferences.We sampled discussions from the beginning, middle, and end of the semester:Group B in Unit 1 (Foundations of Distance Education), Group A in Unit 3(Distance Technologies), and Group X in Unit 6 (Assessment and Evaluation inDistance Education).

Coteachers conference. Private discussions for the instructor and TAs took placewithin the coteachers conference. Topics included reminders of dates and tasks tobe accomplished, drafts of messages to be sent to students, discussions of facilitatingproblems and solutions, copies of real-time chats with each other and of messagesposted elsewhere, and grading scales for discussions.

Private unit discussion conferences. Within each unit discussion was a private discus-sion conference for the instructor, the TAs, and the discussion cofacilitators. Cofa-cilitators determined three to five key issues to introduce to the discussionparticipants and developed stimulus questions for each issue. The instructor moni-tored the private discussions and posted pedagogical intervention and supportmessages. The TAs took turns helping each group of facilitators develop discussionquestions and an action plan for their upcoming unit discussion. Facilitators main-tained contact with each other throughout the public discussions.

Public unit discussion conferences. Each unit discussion also contained two publicdiscussion conferences for the discussion facilitators and participants. During each2-week unit the cofacilitators had multiple responsibilities, whereas discussionparticipants had more limited ones. The instructor and TAs monitored the publicdiscussions but did not participate in them. Facilitators opened the discussion byposting a welcome message and three stimulus questions in both public conferences.Their specific tasks were to promote lively discussion, to comment on the responsesof the participants, to tie participants’ comments to other points made in the read-ings, to make connections between the comments, to encourage elaboration andadditional debate of interesting points, to provide links to additional relevant infor-mation, and to query students directly using their names. Discussion participantswere to post a minimum of five substantive messages, and anywhere from two to fiveother shorter messages.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Data Analysis

The phases for data analysis were coding system development, the pilot study, andthe main study. We conducted a literature review to develop the initial codingsystem. A mixed-method design, combining qualitative and quantitative contentanalysis, was used to conduct a pilot study to test the coding system. To develop thefinal coding system we used qualitative data analysis to confirm the findings from theliterature and obtain emergent findings that were previously unidentified. Weemployed quantitative content analysis for both the pilot study and the main study.

Coding system development. Based on a synthesis of the literature, we constructed acoding system of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating online discussions. Our codingsystem is modeled after similarly structured coding systems of online discussions(Angeli et al., 2003; Henri, 1992; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Theinitial coding system encompassed definitions, indicators, and approaches to explicatethe characteristics of each of the three categories—mentoring, coaching, and facilitat-ing. Each category included an area for emerging indicators.

Pilot study. The purpose of the pilot study was to compare our individual codingon printed transcripts to reach consensus on interpretations of definitions andindicators of the three roles of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating. Using theinitial coding system to conduct quantitative content analysis, each researcherindependently analyzed a specified portion of the data in one of the publicdiscussions and evaluated selected messages based on the meaning contained inthe message. The unit of analysis was a paragraph. We repeated this procedurewith a sample of messages in two other types of computer conferences. We pilottested and revised the coding system multiple times to incorporate emerging cate-gories, such as “request for information”, and refine our thinking in attempts toachieve consensus on the coded transcripts. See Appendix for the final codingsystem.

Main study. Using our revised coding system, we employed quantitative contentanalysis to analyze the selected conference transcripts. The paragraphs within eachmessage in all seven conferences were numbered and real-time chat transcripts wereexcluded. The transcripts maintained message-identifying features and discussionthreads. To facilitate coding, the second author created coding templates for eachconference, which included the paragraph number, the participant’s formal role, thebeginning text of the paragraph, and empty columns for the two coders to post theircodes.

Two teams of two researchers each performed independent coding of the sevenconference transcripts. One research team discussed their independent coding atthe beginning stages to ensure that they were on the same track, whereas the otherteam did their coding individually without communication. After the conference

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


transcripts had been coded, the first two authors independently identified codingagreement within each conference. They ignored coding agreement of greetingsand closings, as well as very short paragraphs such as “Good suggestion” and“Good point”. They looked for coding agreement first in categories, then in indica-tors, and finally in codes, each according to the individual’s formal role (instructor,TA, facilitator, or discussion participant).

The trustworthiness of this study was tested using credibility and interrater reli-ability. We established credibility through persistent observation and triangulation(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Persistent observation was achieved by reviewing theliterature, exploring the course Web site, and analyzing online discussion tran-scripts. We moved “iteratively” between a literature review and direct observationof transcripts “to develop relevant and representative coding indicators” (Rourke &Anderson, 2004, p. 10). Triangulation took place by sampling different discussiongroups representing different times during the semester.

Interrater reliability is defined as the extent to which different coders, eachcoding the same content, come to the same coding decisions (Rourke et al.,2001). Interrater reliability was calculated using Holsti’s (1969) coefficient reli-ability. The interrater reliability for all conference transcripts was 64%, which islower than the recommended 80% (Rourke et al.). Several factors impacted thecoding process—multiple versions of the coding system, training of coders,coders’ level of research experience, and the diverse cultural composition of thecoders.

Results

Data were gathered from a semester-long online graduate course for two purposes:to determine the characteristics of the instructor’s, teaching assistants’, andstudents’ messages in online discussions; and to create a model for mentoring,coaching, and facilitating learning in online discussions. We acknowledged thefollowing participant roles at the outset: the instructor’s guiding role, the TAs’ moni-toring and regulating role, and the student facilitators’ discussion facilitation role.Results are presented according to research question.

Message Characteristics

Question 1 asked: “What are characteristics of the messages posted by the instruc-tor, teaching assistants, and students in online discussions?” To answer this ques-tion, we used the coding system as a guide to categorize the types of messagesposted. Figures 3, 4, and 5 illustrate the types of discussion messages that theinstructor, the TAs, and the facilitators posted in each of three types of conferences.Bold lines and arrows indicate private conferences, and double lines and arrowsindicate public conferences. One-way arrows indicate one-way interactions, andtwo-way arrows indicate two-way interactions. Explanations of the three figuresfollow.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Figure 3. Types of discussion messages posted by the instructor and TAs in the coteachers conferenceFigure 4. Types of discussion messages posted by the instructor, TAs, and cofacilitators in the private unit discussion conferencesFigure 5. Types of discussion messages posted by cofacilitators and discussion participants in the public unit discussion conferences

Coteachers conference. In the private coteachers conference designated for theinstructor and TAs, characteristics of instructor messages to TAs included mentor-ing and coaching functions; TA messages to the instructor were replies, progressreports, and requests for information; and TA messages to each other includedreplies, requests for information, coaching, and minimal facilitating functions. InFigure 3, the one-way arrows from the instructor to the TAs indicate one-way inter-actions (i.e., the instructor mentored and coached TAs). Coders agreed that thefollowing quotation illustrated the instructor’s coaching by monitoring and regulat-ing learner performance:

You are preparing to chat with the two Unit 5 facilitators tonight—good! I’m a bitconcerned that nothing is in their collaborative documents yet. My new message “Getstarted: Tips for facilitation” may be helpful …

The two-way arrows between TAs indicate that the TAs coached each other, asthis quotation from one TA to the other demonstrated, monitoring and regulatinglearner performance:

Following there is a chat that took place between Dr. M and X after the chat withUnit 3 facilitators … In order to fully understand the context it is necessary to readthe chat of Unit 3 facilitators of the same date located in the respective private section.Thanks.

Instructor Co-facilitators

CoachFacilitate

CoachFacilitate

MentorCoach

Facilitate

Facilitate FacilitateTAs

Co-facilitators

Figure 4. Types of discussion messages posted by the instructor, TAs, and cofacilitators in the private unit discussion conferences

Instructor TAs TAs

MentorCoach

Coach Coach

Figure 3. Types of discussion messages posted by the instructor and TAs in the coteachers conference

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Private unit discussion conferences. In the three private cofacilitators conferencesdesignated for the instructor, TAs, and cofacilitators, the instructor and TAmessages to facilitators were characterized as mostly coaching and facilitating func-tions. The facilitator messages to the instructor and TAs were often replies andrequests for information, although messages to their fellow cofacilitators primarilydisplayed facilitating functions. In Figure 4, the interactions between the instructorand facilitators indicate that the instructor mentored, coached, and facilitated facili-tators, and that the facilitators facilitated discussion with the instructor. Codersagreed that the following first example illustrated how the instructor mentored facil-itators by providing editorial and publishing support, and the second examplereveals how the instructor facilitated facilitators as a pedagogical activity:

Write preliminary stimulus questions and later some follow-up questions, in yourcollaborative document. Be ready to edit each other’s questions for clarity, thorough-ness, and understanding. Remember to begin with open-ended questions. Follow-upquestions are usually more specific.

Be consistent in how you present your initial stimulus questions. Do they have the sametype of information? style?

The interactions between TAs and facilitators indicate that TAs coached andfacilitated facilitators, whereas in some instances facilitators facilitated TAs. In thefollowing example, a TA coached facilitators by monitoring and regulating theirperformance:

If you don’t mind, before you post the welcome to the class, could you post it into the… welcome collaborative document. I bet you will do a great job. I just want to take alook first. I will give my feedback right away.

The next quotation illustrates how a TA provided managerial facilitation:

You probably need to have a pre discussion with your group members [about] how toget started, like dividing readings in order to come up with questions, welcome page andfacilitating procedure. I would be very happy to join you all online if your guys inviteme. For this unit, I will be working with you all to prepare the facilitating activities. Mypreferred time online will be every night after 9:45 pm. I need to put my kids into bed.After they fall asleep, I can do my stuff.

The two-way interactions between the facilitators indicate that the facilitatorscoached and facilitated each other. In the following quotation, coders agreed thata facilitator coached the other facilitators by monitoring and regulating theirperformance:

Participants ParticipantsCo-facilitators

Facilitate Coach

Facilitate Facilitate

Figure 5. Types of discussion messages posted by cofacilitators and discussion participants in the public unit discussion conferences

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


You will not have to do it, because the activity that C was suppose[d] to do is the privateevaluation of the group members and that is private [for] each one with Dr. M., so youshould fill it out and send it to her individually.

Public unit discussion conferences. In the three selected public unit discussions desig-nated for the cofacilitators and discussion participants, facilitator messages to theparticipants were primarily facilitating, although a few coaching interactions tookplace. In Figure 5, one-way arrows between facilitators and participants indicate thatthe facilitators facilitated and coached the participants, and infrequently the partici-pants even facilitated the facilitators. The first example shows how a facilitatorcoached participants by provoking reflection, and the second example was coded asa pedagogical facilitation activity:

You mentioned the relationship between the two-way audio-video environment andpersonality. How can this limitation be overcome? What [are] the roles of instructors toovercome this limitation?

I agree with that self-directed learning and having responsibility of own learning(ownership) are key success factor with familiarity with technology in distance educa-tion. These self-directed learning and ownership are the factors in authentic learning.Do you think these factors are requirements of distance learners or they are developingthrough the process of distance education?

Two-way arrows between participants indicate that participants facilitated eachother, as in the following example that was coded as a social activity:

Hi A: I just wanted to add how much I have appreciated you asking questions. Itseemed like when I did not know how to do something, I could go to Q&A and you hadalready asked it and gotten an answer. You sure saved me a lot of time!! And all becauseyou ask good questions!!

Model of Mentoring, Coaching, and Facilitating Online Discussions

Question 2 asked: “What is the nature of a model for mentoring, coaching, and facil-itating learning in online discussions?” To answer this question, we built a hierarchi-cal framework guided by the number and types of discussion messages posted by theinstructor, the TAs, the facilitators, and the participants, as shown in Figures 3–5.Figure 6 illustrates a proposed model for mentoring, coaching, and facilitating onlinediscussions. In a private coteachers conference, the instructor mentors TAs on howto work effectively with the student facilitators, and the TAs coach each otherthrough their assigned tasks. In a private conference designated for the instructor,TAs, and facilitators to plan for upcoming discussions, three types of interactionstake place—the instructor mentors, coaches, and facilitates the facilitators; the TAscoach and facilitate the facilitators; and the facilitators coach and facilitate eachother. In a public discussion conference designated for student facilitators to facilitatepeer participant learning, two types of interactions typically take place—facilitatorscoach and facilitate the participants, and participants facilitate learning for each

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


other. Also in the public unit discussions, depending on the participants’ onlineexpertise levels, participants can coach and facilitate the facilitators.Figure 6. A constructivist model of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating online discussions

Discussion

This exploratory investigation of the management of online discussions in an onlinegraduate course resulted in an innovative model of mentoring, coaching, and facili-tating online discussions. The instructor’s role was to guide students, the volunteerTAs’ role was to monitor and regulate the online discussions, and the student facili-tators’ role was to facilitate the discussions for the participants. The proposedconstructivist model (Figure 6) fosters active learning, provides scaffolding forstudents to become facilitators of learning, and suggests creative ways for onlineinstructors to manage different types of teaching responsibilities.

The model fostered active learning by turning students into discussion facilitatorswho elicited participants’ higher-order thinking and engagement with the content inan “authentic” (Jonassen, 1999, p. 221) context. Reflecting Anderson et al.’s(2001) description of discourse facilitation, the discussion facilitators identifiedareas of agreement and disagreement; sought to reach consensus and understand-ing; encouraged, acknowledged, or reinforced student contributions; set a climatefor learning; drew in participants, prompting discussion; and assessed the efficacyof the process.

Mentors Caches

Instructor

Facilitate

Coach & Facilitate

CoachFacilitate

Participants

Coach & Facilitate

Co-facilitatorsCoach

Facilitate

TAs

Private ConferencesPublic ConferencesPublic Conferences interaction dependent upon participant online expertise

Coach

ParticipantsCo-facilitatorsTAs

Mentors Coaches

Facilitates

Figure 6. A constructivist model of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating online discussions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Volunteer TAs provided for an integral aspect of the constructivist model.Students, both TAs and facilitators, taught reciprocally through “distributed exper-tise”, a technique intended to create a community of learners who learn how to learnand in turn become “intelligent novices” who teach each other (Brown et al., 1993,p.190). This approach, based on cognitive apprenticeship theory (Collins et al.,1989), aided TAs in coaching facilitators on the complex task of facilitating onlinediscussions.

Active learning has recently taken on different connotations. Due to the prolifera-tion of online courses in the past decade, university students have become accustomedto participating in discussions that the instructor facilitates (Hiltz, 1994; Mason,1991). However, when guided to adopt a facilitating role, “students-as-facilitators”tend to engage actively with the content (Murphy & Gazi, 2001, 2003). The currentstudy supports research that student-led discussions are more efficient than instruc-tor-led ones (Tagg, 1994) and result in much greater levels of participation, motiva-tion, and student satisfaction (Rourke & Anderson, 2002). Students become expertsin the content that they facilitate (Murphy et al., 1997) while learning to emulate theinstructor’s and TAs’ discussion facilitating approaches. Interestingly, we found thatmany students who had already been facilitators earlier in the semester adopted facil-itating roles when they were participants in later discussions. This finding was similarto Anderson’s (2004) suggestion that role modeling is helpful for students lacking theskills to facilitate class discussion successfully. Reflective of vicarious interaction(Fulford & Zhang, 1993), some participants adopted facilitating behaviors thatprevious facilitators modeled, even though their own turn to facilitate discussions hadnot come.

The model provided scaffolding, and the cognitive tool FirstClass™ allowedstudents to communicate asynchronously and synchronously, and both publicly andprivately. The instructor’s scaffolding consisted of presenting the overall student-centered course design on the Web and creating the FirstClass™ public and privateconferences and collaborative documents. The TAs provided scaffolding by assistingthe student discussion facilitators in developing their discussion questions and anaction plan for their unit discussion. The facilitators’ scaffolding was primarilydiscourse facilitation to maintain sustained and authentic communication (Andersonet al., 2001) of the readings with discussion participants.

The model suggests creative ways for online instructors to manage different typesof teaching responsibilities. Several studies report that development and delivery ofonline courses require different types of tasks and approaches (Collis & Nijhuis,2000; DiBiase, 2000), which may require more time than for traditional courses(Visser, 2000) or simply create the perception of requiring more time (Thompson,2004). For instance, instructors who adopt a highly visible role in the online classspend more time building community online or facilitating discussions (Morris, Xu,& Finnegan, 2005), creating “a sense of less productive time available for otherprofessional responsibilities” (Thompson, 2004, p. 86). Striking a delicate balancebetween structure and dialogue (Murphy & Cifuentes, 2001), and between individ-ual freedom and cooperation in an online learning community (Paulsen, 2005), is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


critical for the online instructor because of the difference in the flow of tasks online(Thompson, 2004) or the types of tasks themselves (Collis & Nijhuis; DiBiase). Theconstructivist model of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating achieved a balancebetween structure and dialog through the use of TAs to guide student discussionfacilitators. In a social constructivist manner, the instructor acted behind the scenesas a facilitator of learning (Gunawardena, 1992), thereby giving credibility to facilita-tors while creating a model for TAs and facilitators to do the same. The instructor’stasks were probably no less, but they were distributed in a way that assisted learningat several levels. In subsequent semesters we refined the approach, which requiredless instructor time.

The data analysis phase involved five researchers who analyzed seven computerconferences. Developing an initial coding system based on a literature review ofmentoring, coaching, and facilitating was complex and time-consuming. Problemsthat we encountered were multiple versions of the coding system, training of coders,and a wide diversity among coders—all of which contributed to a low overallinterrater reliability of 64%. The original coding system did not include examples oftext, merely approaches, leading to misinterpretation among coding teams. Trainingcoders was also problematic. At no time did all five researchers meet as a face-to-face group, although varying combinations of researchers met either face-to-face orin FirstClass™ chats. The wide diversity among coders also proved to be a chal-lenge. Three of the coders were experienced researchers, whereas two coders werenovices. In the initial stages of research, three researchers were internationalstudents, who usually bring with them different understandings and require explicitdefinitions of terms.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Course design is critical in promoting an online community of practice that allowsinstructors to reduce their load through creative management of their teachingresponsibilities. Aspects of constructivist course design included making use ofvolunteer TAs, providing private discussion areas for mentoring and coaching activi-ties to take place, and structuring activities for students to become facilitators oflearning. Thus the proposed framework expands the Stover et al. (2000) teachingteams model comprised of the instructor, TAs, and undergraduate preceptors whoact as role models to their peers. Our analyses enabled us to create a theoretical andpractical model for mentoring, coaching, and facilitating online discussions(Figure 6). This model is a reciprocal framework for online discussions in which theinstructor, TAs, and student facilitators learn from each other. The instructor’s socialconstructivist style of teaching was reflected in students’ messages at each level in amanner that encouraged learners to draw their own meaning from discussions as theygrappled with the course content. The group learning contracts fostered regulation oflearning and group interaction and cohesion by subtly forcing group members to lookat the various personalities, skills, and workloads (Murphy et al., 2000). Like otherresearchers, we have learned to give increasingly precise instructions on the course

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Web site about the way to communicate online (Carr-Chellman & Duchastel, 2000;Collis & Nijhuis, 2000).

The facilitators adopted the “democratic structure” posited by Svensson andMagnusson (2003) in their description of “peers” (¶8), where all members are equaland nearly all group tasks are carried out in focused collaboration. Like Svenssonand Magnusson’s peers, the facilitators in this study resolved their problems collabo-ratively in their private unit discussions with the TAs and instructor, rather thanemailing the instructor directly. The instructor and the TAs developed a mentoringrelationship in a community of practice that enhanced learning in a manner resem-bling Tu and McIsaac’s (2001) descriptions. Mentoring took place primarily duringthe semester that the course was offered, although the mentoring process continuedwith the same TAs who volunteered their services in subsequent semesters. Like theTu and McIsaac study, mentoring took place as a result of the instructor’s and TAs’similar interests in online learning; in addition, both TAs were the instructor’sdoctoral advisees.

In conclusion, students—TAs, facilitators, and discussion participants—taughtreciprocally through distributed expertise (Brown et al., 1993, p.190). The coursedesign provided scaffolding to help students become facilitators of learning. Finally,our model would foster online instructors’ creative and expedient management oftheir complex online teaching responsibilities.

Further research should broaden the understanding of mentoring, coaching, andfacilitating online discussions through conducting interviews with selected partici-pants to ensure triangulation, or by replicating this study with other graduatestudents or with undergraduate students. In large undergraduate classes, the useof TAs to coach student facilitators would be particularly advantageous in distrib-uting expertise through reciprocal teaching (Brown et al., 1993). Another fruitfularea of research would be a longitudinal study of individuals as they develop facili-tating skills over time. Further research should define more closely the mentoring,coaching, and facilitating categories by careful coding of online transcripts. AsRourke and Anderson (2004) charge, “Examples of QCA (qualitative contentanalysis) research in which a coding protocol is developed methodically and vali-dated systematically are rare” (p. 15). Thus, in future research using our codingsystem, coders must agree on a sample of their independent coding and discussany differences throughout the coding process to increase the interrater reliabilityscore to above 80%. Finally, although this study relied on volunteer TAs to coachdiscussion facilitators, further research should focus on a course design that doesnot rely on volunteer TAs but one in which the instructor directly coaches studentfacilitators.

Notes on Contributors

Karen L. Murphy is Associate Professor Emerita at Texas A&M University, and iscurrently Visiting Associate Professor at Western New Mexico University,Silver City, USA.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Sue E. Mahoney is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Urban Education atthe University of Houston-Downtown in Houston, Texas, USA.

Chun-Ying Chen is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of InformationManagement, Transworld Institute of Technology in Taiwan.

Noemi V. Mendoza-Díaz is working on her Ph.D. in Human Resource Develop-ment with an emphasis on distance education at Texas A&M University, USA.

“Sally” Xiaobing Yang is a Senior IT Consultant for Instructional TechnologyServices at Texas A&M University, and is also working on her Ph.D. in Educa-tional Psychology with a specialty in educational technology.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education inthe United States, 2002 and 2003. Needham & Wellesley, MA: Sloan Center for Online Educationat Olin and Babson Colleges.

Anderson, T. (2004). Chapter 11: Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson &F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, Alberta, Canada:Athabasca University. Retrieved June 24, 2004, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in acomputer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). RetrievedJanuary 22, 2002, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol5_issue2/Anderson/52%20JALN%20Anderson%20Assessing.htm

Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a Web-based conferencingsystem: The quality of computer-mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology,34(1), 31–43.

Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field.Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30. Retrieved June 3, 2003, from http://www.emodera-tors.com/moderators/teach_online.html

Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993).Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychologicaland educational considerations (pp. 32–42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Carr-Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 31(3), 229–241.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craftsof reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction:Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collis, B., & Nijhuis, G. G. (2000). The instructor as manager: Time and task. Internet and HigherEducation, 3(1–2), 75–97.

Daloz, L. A. (1999). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Dennen, V. P. (2002). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding,

modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Hand-book of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

DiBiase, D. (2000). Is distance teaching more work or less work? The American Journal of DistanceEducation, 14(3), 6–20.

Downes, S. (1998). The future of online learning. Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. Retrieved March 7,2004, from http://www.downes.ca/future/

Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distanceeducation. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8–21.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literatediscourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applicationsof sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, andcomputer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education,15(1), 7–23.

Gunawardena, C. N. (1992). Changing faculty roles for audiographics and online teaching. TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 58–71.

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999, December). Students’ frustrations with a Web-based distance educationcourse. First Monday, 4(12). Retrieved March 10, 2002, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborativelearning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 115–136). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hill, J. R (2001). Building community in Web-based learning environments: Strategies and techniques.Paper presented at AusWeb01 7th Australian World Wide Web Conference, Southern CrossUniversity, Lismore, Australia. Retrieved June 15, 2001, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw01/papers/refereed/hill/paper.html

Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2,pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructionaldesign theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Keller, J. M., & Kopp, T. W. (1987). An application of the ARCS model of motivational design.In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories andmodels. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26,608–625.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York:Cambridge University.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS, 1(19).

Retrieved June 3, 2003, from http://www.emoderators.com/papers/mason.htmlMorris, L. V., Xu, H., & Finnegan, A. L. (2005). Roles of faculty in teaching asynchronous under-

graduate courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1), 84–88. Retrieved June 8,2004, from http://www.sloanc.org/publications/jaln/v9n1/v9n1_morris.asp

Murphy, K. L., & Cifuentes, L. (2001). Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online.Distance Education, 22(2), 285–305.

Murphy, K. L., Cifuentes, L., & Shih, Y-C. (2004, May–June). Online collaborative documentsfor research and coursework. TechTrends, 48(3), 40–44, 74.

Murphy, K. L., Cifuentes, L., Yakimovicz, A. D., Segur, R., Mahoney, S. E., & Kodali, S. (1997).Students assume the mantle of moderating computer conferences: A case study. The AmericanJournal of Distance Education, 10(3), 20–36.

Murphy, K. L., & Gazi, Y. (2001). Role plays, panel discussions, and simulations: Project-basedlearning in a Web-based course. Educational Media International, 38(4), 261–270.

Murphy, K. L., & Gazi, Y. (2003). Collaboration and community through simulation/role-play. InS. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 177–190).London & Sterling, VA: Kogan Page.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Murphy, K. L., Mahoney, S. E., & Harvell, T. J. (2000). Role of contracts in enhancing commu-nity building in Web courses. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 409–421. RetrievedAugust 1, 2000, from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/e03.html

Parsloe, E., & Wray, M. (2000). Coaching and mentoring: Practical methods to improve learning.London: Kogan Page.

Paulsen, M. F. (2005, May). COGS, CLIPS and other instruments to support cooperative learning invirtual learning environments. Plenary address given at the Annual Conference of the CanadianAssociation for Distance Education, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Retrieved May 30, 2005, fromhttp://home.nettskolen.com/∼morten/

Perkins, D. N. (1992). What constructivism demands of the learner. In T. M. Duffy & D. H.Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 161–166). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Persico, D., & Manca, S. (2000). Use of FirstClass as a collaborative learning environment.Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 34–41.

Price, M. A., & Chen, H-H. (2003). Promises and challenges: Exploring a collaborative telemen-toring programme in a preservice teacher education programme. Mentoring and Tutoring:Partnership in Learning, 11(1), 105–107.

Romiszowski, A. J., & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen(Ed.), The handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 438–456).New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Exploring social communication in computer conferencing.Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 259–275.

Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 52(1), 5–18.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in thecontent analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelli-gence in Education, 12. Retrieved January 22, 2002, from http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/cmc/2Rourke_et_al_Content_Analysis.pdf

Severn, K. (1998). Group learning contracts. Retrieved June 30, 1999, from http://www.coe.tamu.edu/∼kmurphy/classes/glcontracts.html

Stover, L. A., Story, K. A., Skousen, A. M., Jacks, C. E., Logan, H., & Bush, B. T. (2000). TheTeaching Teams Program: Empowering undergraduates in a student-centered researchuniversity. In J. E. Miller, J. E. Groccia, & M. S. Miller (Eds.), Student-assisted teaching: Aguide to faculty–student teamwork (pp. 40–43). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Svensson, L., & Magnusson, M. (2003). Crowds, crews, teams and peers: A study of collabora-tive work in learning-centre based distance education. e-Journal of Instructional Science andTechnology (e-JIST), 6(1). Retrieved April 22, 2003, from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/Vol6_No1/crowds.htm

Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 40–50.

Thompson, M. M. (2004). Faculty self-study research project: Examining the online workload.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3), 84–88. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n3/v8n3_thompson.asp

Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2001, April) Community of practice for mentoring. Paper presented atthe Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle. RetrievedApril 22, 2003, from http://home.gwu.edu/∼ctu/publication/2001/Mentoring_AERA.pdf

Visser, J. V. (2000). Faculty work in developing and teaching Web-based distance courses: A casestudy of time and effort. The American Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 21–32.

Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Waterhouse, S., & Rogers, R. O. (2004). The importance of policies in e-learning instruction.Educause Quarterly, 27(3). Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm04/eqm0433.asp

Winograd, D. (2001). Guidelines for moderating online educational computer conferences. RetrievedJanuary 22, 2003, from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/winograd.html

Young, J. R. (2002, May). The 24-hour professor. The Chronicle of Higher Education. RetrievedFebruary 22, 2003, from http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i38/38a03101.htm

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Cat

egor

y

Men

tori

ng

is a

one

-on-

one

rela

tion

ship

bet

wee

n an

exp

ert

and

a no

vice

in w

hich

the

exp

ert

guid

es t

he n

ovic

e by

beh

avio

ral a

nd c

ogni

tive

m

odel

ing,

aca

dem

ic a

nd c

aree

r co

unse

ling,

em

otio

nal a

nd s

chol

arly

sup

port

, adv

ice,

pro

fess

iona

l net

wor

king

, and

ass

essm

ent.

Ind

icat

orD

efin

itio

nA

pp

roac

hes

Cod

es

Rol

e-m

odel

ing

Dem

onst

rati

on o

f ov

ert

beha

vior

and

co

vert

cog

niti

ve p

roce

sses

by

skill

ed

perf

orm

er

•M

odel

per

form

ance

•A

rtic

ulat

e re

ason

ing

M1

M2

Aca

dem

ic a

nd c

aree

r co

unse

ling

Ski

lls a

nd k

now

ledg

e gu

idan

ce a

nd

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t ad

vice

•S

tim

ulat

e ot

hers

to th

ink

crit

ical

ly a

bout

thei

r ow

n te

achi

ng; p

rovi

de c

onte

nt e

xper

tise

; agr

ee u

pon

acad

emic

and

sch

olar

ly g

oals

M3

Psy

chol

ogic

al s

uppo

rtE

mot

iona

l sup

port

•P

rovi

de s

uppo

rt a

nd r

espo

nd t

o em

otio

nal

reac

tion

s; r

eass

ure

lear

ners

tha

t th

ey c

an s

ucce

ed;

show

res

pect

for

adu

lt li

fe s

itua

tion

s

M4

Adv

ice

Rel

ated

to

deve

lopm

ent

and

succ

ess

•O

ffer

inte

grat

ion

wit

hin

the

lear

ning

com

mun

ity

(e.g

., c

lass

mat

es, l

ists

ervs

); r

espo

nd t

o le

arne

r in

quir

ies;

pro

vide

neg

otia

tion

and

gui

danc

e w

ith

polit

ics

and

proc

edur

es

M5

Edi

tori

al a

nd p

ublis

hing

sup

port

Ass

ista

nce

in w

riti

ng a

nd p

ublis

hing

sc

hola

rly

wor

k•

Pro

vide

aca

dem

ic r

esou

rces

and

adv

ice;

edi

ting

ad

vice

M6

Org

aniz

atio

nal a

nd p

rofe

ssio

nal

netw

ork

acce

ss in

a s

hare

d va

lue

rela

tion

ship

Sup

port

in in

tegr

atio

n to

the

co

mm

unit

y of

sch

olar

s•

Est

ablis

h m

utua

l rel

atio

nshi

ps; e

nhan

ce s

ense

of

belo

ngin

g to

the

com

mun

ity

of s

chol

ars

M7

Ass

essm

ent

Eva

luat

ion

of T

A’s

per

form

ance

•D

iscu

ss o

r gi

ve f

eedb

ack

on T

A’s

tea

chin

gM

8

Ap

pen

dix

: T

he

cod

ing

syst

em

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Cat

egor

y

Coa

chin

g is

obs

ervi

ng le

arne

rs’ p

erfo

rman

ce a

nd p

rovi

ding

enc

oura

gem

ent,

dia

gnos

is, d

irec

tion

s, a

nd f

eedb

ack.

Spe

cifi

cally

, coa

chin

g in

volv

es

prov

idin

g m

otiv

atio

nal p

rom

pts,

mon

itor

ing

and

regu

lati

ng le

arne

r pe

rfor

man

ce, p

rovo

king

ref

lect

ion,

and

per

turb

ing

lear

ners

’ mod

els.

Ind

icat

orD

efin

itio

nA

pp

roac

hes

Cod

es

Pro

vide

mot

ivat

iona

l pr

ompt

sP

rovi

de le

arne

rs w

ith

a go

od r

easo

n fo

r be

com

ing

enga

ged

and

subs

eque

ntly

boo

st le

arne

rs’

conf

iden

ce le

vels

thro

ugh

stra

tegi

es

of a

tten

tion

, rel

evan

ce, c

onfi

denc

e,

and

sati

sfac

tion

•at

tent

ion

by p

erce

ptua

l aro

usal

: gai

n at

tent

ion

thro

ugh

nove

l or

surp

risi

ng e

vent

s•

atte

ntio

n by

inqu

iry

arou

sal:

stim

ulat

e in

form

atio

n-se

ekin

g be

havi

or

by h

avin

g le

arne

rs g

ener

ate

ques

tion

s to

ans

wer

or

prob

lem

s to

sol

ve•

rele

vanc

e re

lies

on “

fam

iliar

ity”

: use

con

cret

e la

ngua

ge a

nd e

xam

ples

an

d co

ncep

ts r

elat

ed t

o th

e le

arne

r’s

expe

rien

ce a

nd v

alue

s•

rele

vanc

e by

“go

al o

rien

tati

on”:

pre

sent

obj

ecti

ves

and

goal

s fo

r ac

com

plis

hing

the

obj

ecti

ves

•co

nfid

ence

thr

ough

“ex

pect

ancy

for

suc

cess

”: m

ake

lear

ners

aw

are

of

perf

orm

ance

req

uire

men

ts a

nd e

valu

ativ

e cr

iter

ia•

conf

iden

ce t

hrou

gh “

attr

ibut

ion

mol

ding

”: g

ive

feed

back

tha

t su

ppor

ts

stud

ent

abili

ty a

nd e

ffor

t as

the

det

erm

inan

ts o

f su

cces

s•

satis

fact

ion:

hel

p le

arne

rs m

aint

ain

thei

r le

vels

of

mot

ivat

ion

thro

ugh

“pos

itiv

e co

nseq

uenc

es,”

or

feed

back

and

rei

nfor

cem

ent

to s

usta

in

the

desi

red

beha

vior

; and

thr

ough

“eq

uity

,” o

r co

nsis

tent

sta

ndar

ds

and

cons

eque

nces

for

tas

k ac

com

plis

hmen

t

CM

1C

M2

CM

3C

M4

CM

5C

M6

CM

7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Cat

egor

y

Coa

chin

g is

obs

ervi

ng le

arne

rs’ p

erfo

rman

ce a

nd p

rovi

ding

enc

oura

gem

ent,

dia

gnos

is, d

irec

tion

s, a

nd f

eedb

ack.

Spe

cifi

cally

, coa

chin

g in

volv

es

prov

idin

g m

otiv

atio

nal p

rom

pts,

mon

itor

ing

and

regu

lati

ng le

arne

r pe

rfor

man

ce, p

rovo

king

ref

lect

ion,

and

per

turb

ing

lear

ners

’ mod

els.

Ind

icat

orD

efin

itio

nA

pp

roac

hes

Cod

es

Mon

itor

and

reg

ulat

e le

arne

r’s

perf

orm

ance

Mon

itor

, ana

lyze

, and

re

gula

te s

kill

deve

lopm

ent

of

lear

ners

•pr

ovid

e hi

nts

and

help

•pr

ompt

app

ropr

iate

kin

ds o

f th

inki

ng (

e.g.

, sto

ry-t

ellin

g, g

ener

atin

g im

ages

, sum

mar

izin

g re

sult

s, d

raw

ing

impl

icat

ions

)•

prov

ide

for

colla

bora

tive

act

ivit

ies

•us

e co

gnit

ive

tool

s to

ass

ist

arti

cula

tion

and

und

erst

andi

ng•

prov

ide

feed

back

tha

t in

form

s le

arne

rs a

bout

eff

ecti

vene

ss a

nd a

ccur

acy

of

perf

orm

ance

and

ana

lyze

s ac

tion

s an

d th

inki

ng

CO

1C

O2

CO

3C

O4

CO

5

Pro

voke

ref

lect

ion

Pro

voke

lear

ners

to

refl

ect

on

thei

r pe

rfor

man

ce b

y m

onit

orin

g an

d an

alyz

ing

it

•as

k le

arne

rs t

o re

flec

t on

wha

t th

ey h

ave

done

, ass

umpt

ions

the

y ha

ve

mad

e, a

nd s

trat

egie

s th

ey h

ave

used

•as

k le

arne

rs t

o ex

plai

n w

hy t

hey

mad

e a

part

icul

ar r

espo

nse

•as

k le

arne

rs t

o co

nfir

m a

n in

tend

ed r

espo

nse

•as

k le

arne

rs t

o st

ate

how

cer

tain

the

y w

ere

in a

cer

tain

res

pons

e•

requ

ire

lear

ners

to

argu

e w

ith

the

coac

h

CR

1

CR

2C

R3

CR

4C

R5

Per

turb

lear

ners

’ m

odel

Cha

nge

the

men

tal m

odel

s of

na

ïve

lear

ners

to

faci

litat

e th

eir

unde

rsta

ndin

g

•em

bed

prov

okin

g qu

esti

ons

(Hav

e yo

u th

ough

t ab

out

…?)

•re

quir

e le

arne

rs t

o re

flec

t on

the

ir a

ctio

ns (

Why

did

you

…?)

•as

k le

arne

rs t

o co

nfir

m o

r cl

arif

y w

hat

happ

ened

(W

hy d

id t

hat

reac

tion

ha

ppen

?)•

prov

ide

diss

onan

t vi

ews

or in

terp

reta

tion

s in

res

pons

e to

lear

ner

acti

ons

or

inte

rpre

tati

ons

CP

1C

P2

CP

3

CP

4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Cat

egor

y

Fac

ilit

atin

g is

pro

vidi

ng te

chni

cal,

peda

gogi

cal,

man

ager

ial,

and

soci

al a

ctiv

ities

that

mai

ntai

n su

stai

ned

and

auth

entic

com

mun

icat

ion

betw

een

and

amon

g in

stru

ctor

s an

d st

uden

ts.

Ind

icat

orD

efin

itio

nA

pp

roac

hes

Cod

es

Tec

hnol

ogic

al a

ctiv

itie

sH

elp

stud

ents

lear

n to

fu

ncti

on a

nd f

eel c

omfo

rtab

le

in t

he o

nlin

e en

viro

nmen

t

•he

lp s

tude

nts

get

onlin

e•

reso

lve

tech

nica

l pro

blem

s w

ith

thei

r ha

rdw

are

and

soft

war

e•

redi

rect

stu

dent

s’ p

osti

ngs

whe

n th

ey a

re in

the

wro

ng p

lace

FT

1F

T2

FT

3P

edag

ogic

al a

ctiv

itie

sM

indf

ully

eng

age

the

lear

ner

thro

ugho

ut a

cou

rse

•fo

cus

disc

ussi

ons

on c

ruci

al p

oint

s•

ask

new

que

stio

ns•

prob

e re

spon

ses:

enc

oura

ge s

tude

nts

to e

xpan

d &

bui

ld o

n co

mm

ents

•ar

ticu

late

rea

soni

ng a

nd d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

•fo

ster

stu

dent

ref

lect

ion

and

self

-aw

aren

ess

•ad

voca

te s

tude

nt e

xplo

rati

on a

nd a

pplic

atio

n of

ski

lls•

inje

ct n

ew k

now

ledg

e•

solic

it c

onfl

icti

ng o

pini

ons

•pl

ay “

devi

l’s a

dvoc

ate”

(ta

ke a

con

flic

ting

pos

itio

n)•

ask

for

clar

ific

atio

n•

diag

nose

mis

conc

epti

ons

•de

al w

ith

disr

upti

ve s

tude

nts

•w

eave

dis

cuss

ion:

iden

tify

impo

rtan

t po

ints

, com

mon

thr

eads

, di

sagr

eem

ents

•su

mm

ariz

e di

scus

sion

: res

tate

idea

s•

get

feed

back

fro

m s

tude

nts

abou

t ho

w t

hing

s ar

e go

ing

(for

mat

ive

feed

back

)

FP

1F

P2

FP

3F

P4

FP

5F

P6

FP

7F

P8

FP

9F

P10

FP

11F

P12

FP

13

FP

14F

P15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Cat

egor

y

Fac

ilit

atin

g is

pro

vidi

ng te

chni

cal,

peda

gogi

cal,

man

ager

ial,

and

soci

al a

ctiv

ities

that

mai

ntai

n su

stai

ned

and

auth

entic

com

mun

icat

ion

betw

een

and

amon

g in

stru

ctor

s an

d st

uden

ts.

Ind

icat

orD

efin

itio

nA

pp

roac

hes

Cod

es

Soc

ial a

ctiv

itie

sC

reat

e a

frie

ndly

, soc

ial

envi

ronm

ent

for

stud

ents

by

prom

otin

g hu

man

rel

atio

nshi

ps,

deve

lopi

ng g

roup

coh

esiv

enes

s, a

nd

mai

ntai

ning

the

gro

up a

s a

unit

•se

nd w

elco

min

g m

essa

ges

at t

he b

egin

ning

•se

nd “

than

k yo

u” n

otic

es, i

nvit

atio

ns, a

polo

gies

, & d

iscu

ssio

ns o

f on

e’s

own

onlin

e ex

peri

ence

and

hum

or•

enco

urag

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

thro

ugho

ut•

prov

ide

feed

back

on

stud

ents

’ inp

uts

(ack

now

ledg

e st

uden

t po

stin

gs)

•us

e a

frie

ndly

, per

sona

l ton

e

FS

1F

S2

FS

3F

S4

FS

5M

anag

eria

l act

ivit

ies

Add

ress

the

pro

cess

fro

m a

n or

gani

zati

onal

, pro

cedu

ral,

or

adm

inis

trat

ive

stan

dpoi

nt

•se

t th

e ag

enda

for

the

con

fere

nce:

the

obj

ecti

ves

of t

he d

iscu

ssio

n,

the

tim

etab

le, p

roce

dura

l rul

es a

nd d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

norm

s•

set

crit

eria

for

per

form

ance

FM

1

FM

2

Oth

ers

Mes

sage

not

rel

ated

to

ass

isti

ng t

each

ing/

lear

ning

E

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

3:46

17

Sept

embe

r 20

13