The Continuing
Importance of Teacher Involvement in the Online Class
In Brinthaup et al’s paper, What the best Online Teachers Should Do (2011), there is a lot of
emphasis not so much on the online elements but simply the qualities and
activities that all teachers – regardless of contexts or resources – should do.
They cite such sources as Grandzol and Grandzol (2006) who contend that ‘the
most essential factor to a successful online education experience is creating a
community of learners where the quantity and quality of interactions with peers
and faculty foster student engagement’. The learning environment will also
promote student-to-faculty interaction as the pre-eminent dynamic, but where
student-to-student interaction closely follows. They also cite Clark-Ibenez
& Scott, (2008) who aver that students should ‘feel a personal and
emotional connection to the subject, their professor, and their peers’ (p. 7),
particularly with regard to the fact that the online learner requires a greater
degree of both self-discipline and self-motivation as compared to students in
more traditional learning situations.
Brinthaup et al go on to assert that, while such elements
as online messaging, discussion forums, blogs and chats are all useful tools to
help promote student engagement and
subsequent inculcation of the relevant subject matter, they should
nevertheless still just be seen as opportunities to build the over-arching
requirement of establishing a community of learners which fosters the primary
dynamic of providing the forum in which students can learn from each other as
well as through tutor-directed means.
Similarly, Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 19) highlights the
desirability of promoting productive discourse in the learning environment,
citing Overbaugh & Nickel (2011). ‘The
task of facilitating discourse is necessary to maintain learner engagement and
refers to focused and sustained deliberation that marks learning in a community
of inquiry.’ Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 19) also cites Shea, Li, & Pickett
(2006), who point to a package of
classroom dynamics that in their opinion facilitate positive discourse, including
the teacher: ‘identifying areas of agreement and disagreement; seeking to reach
consensus and understanding; encouraging, acknowledging, and reinforcing
student contributions; setting the climate for learning; drawing in
participants; prompting discussion; and assessing the efficacy of the process’.
Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 18) also references another study
exploring factors impacting on learning quality. ‘The investigators found that
instructor mentoring and pacing of the course content, were the most important
variables linked to learning quality’ (Peltier, Schibrowsky, & Drago,
2007). Here, the teacher’s ability to establish sufficient social and teaching
presence is seen as vital in furthering the over-arching requirement of
facilitating creative discourse in the context of the online lesson.
Jenkins (Martin & Madigan, p. 162) though, stresses the
importance of tackling e-learning programmes at the initial point of programme
design. He contends that the
majority of e-learning developments are supplementary to face-to-face teaching,
which means that support elements are best planned as part of the curriculum
design or else risk not being fully developed. There is often the prospect
therefore of the teacher being unable to exploit the full potential of e-learning
applications when they are merely ‘bolted-on’ to more conventional and
traditional modes of learning, as opposed to those planned from the outset.
Jenkins (p. 170) accordingly calls for a more holistic approach in the
facilitation of e-learning, where the various learning elements are integrated
in a way that maximises the full potential of e-learning methods and resources
within the context of promotion of positive intra-classroom interaction (both between
teacher/students and student/students), and in terms of the overall learning
goals of the class.
.
The issue of creating a community of learners to foster student engagement is no doubt important (and a topic I blogged about too), but is it realistic with exclusively online learning?
ReplyDeleteAll papers I have taken so far have included (marked or unmarked) discussion forums to encourage discussion amongst ourselves and/or the tutor, but participation is paltry – generally the response is sufficient to cover requirements for discussions that count toward grading.
While time constraints are no doubt a factor, perhaps this also occurs partly due to the fact that we don’t have opportunity interact with each other in a face-to-face setting (apart from the 3 day induction at the start of the degree where one meets other students enrolling at the same time). That can create a feeling of ‘distance’ and ‘impersonality’, making it harder to converse online.
This lack of personal contact is one of the disadvantages of distance learning that is clearly highlighted in Lewis’ (2009) article, and for this reason she suggests blended learning environments. Would that work for our course – a day’s session at the start of each paper to meet each other? Or would geographical distances preclude that?
It may also be that as independent learners studying a Master degree we don’t feel the need for peer-to-peer interaction and are happy just to reflect and write individually? In contrast, as is highlighted in Ako Aotearoa’s (2012)report , adult LLN learners may have a greater need for social interaction and support – would that translate though to a greater proclivity to engage in discussions, or a greater sense of isolation and even less engagement? Lewis (2009) suggests the latter, strengthening my view that, while digital technology used wisely in a classroom might increase student engagement, distance elearning itself is not a viable option for struggling adult learners.
References
Ako Aotearoa. (2012). Lifting our game: Achieving greater success for learners in foundational tertiary education. Wellington, New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence.
Lewis, A. (2009). E-learning and mature-aged learners. Training and Development in Australia, 36(1), 26-28.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree, developing a community of learning in the online learning environment is important and it is something educators have to work at. This theme is evident in your blog. Also, Jenkins mentions that e-learning should be thought through when planning a course. This is why Brinthaupt et al., (2011) mention that there needs to be a long lead in time to the introduction of new courses. In reply to Kieran, I think the reasons for people's participation or non-participation in the e-learning environment are very complex. In the face-to-face environment there is also a varying degree of participation.
ReplyDeleteHi Diana – yes I do agree with you that the reasons for participation or otherwise can be complex, and yes, the same can and does apply in a face-to-face environment.
ReplyDeleteMy point though, in relation to online or distance learning, is that Web 2.0 tools in education are touted as ideal tools for incorporating the ‘best-practice’ principles of participation and group interaction. The down side is that this interaction is also a requirement of their successful use! As remarked by Ladyshewsky (2013) where ‘social presence’ is not established this can result in feelings of isolation and disengagement, and conversely a social presence in a feeling of ‘belonging’ and engagement.
I question how realistic we may be though in expecting dialogue and participation to occur, given that even at Masters level of study (where presumably we are independent learners, self-motivated, and reasonably confident in our abilities) there is typically minimal discussion and interaction, and hence no real sense of a community of peers. How much less likely then for adult literacy students?
I think in contrast it is in fact easier not to participate in an online group environment – in a way non-participation is less visible than in a classroom environment. Perhaps one of the reasons that researcher such as Davis and Fletcher (2010) and Conole (2010) report that blended learning is more successful than distance learning?
Conole, G. (2010). Facilitating new forms of discourse for learning and teaching: Harnessing the power of Web 2.0 practices. Open Learning, 25(2), 141-151. doi:10.1080/02680511003787438
Davis, N., & Fletcher, J. (2010). E-learning for adult literacy, language and numeracy. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/tertiary_education/76971/summary
Ladyshewsky, R. (2013). Instructor presence in online courses and student satisfaction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1-23.