Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Enhancing Computer Mediated Communication in Virtual Learning

Environments

Georgios A. Dafoulas
School of Computing Science
Middlesex University, UK
G. Dafoulas@mdx.ac.uk

Abstract Placing an electronic bulletin board on a course


website does not simply allow learning to take place
The aim of this paper is to present a study for the [8].
communication patterns evident in computer mediated The initial objective of this study is to identify what
communication in e-learning online communities. For constitutes a successful learning activity with respect
the first time in this paper a list of factors affecting to the generation of constructive and productive
communication patterns within online communities is communication between instructors-learners and
presented. A key concern of the study is twofold: first learners-learners. It should be clarified that the volume
to define the correlation between patterns of of a generated discussion seems irrelevant to the
communication and the affecting factors and second to design of a “good learning activity/task”. It is essential
suggesting criteria for designing successful learning to perform both quantitative and qualitative analysis of
activities. This study is concerned with an initial visible communication patterns in order to identify that
analysis of student interaction in three residential such patterns are products of a successful learning
modules (approximately 1500 posts) that is currently structure and not side-effects of bad pedagogical
followed by the analysis of threaded discussions of 32 practices.
online modules of a distance education programme. All case studies used in this research are heavily
based on instructors assuming facilitator roles
1. Introduction throughout a highly structured interaction via threaded
discussions. The role of the facilitator in such
The term Computer-mediated communication discussions is critical for initiation, motivation, conflict
(CMC) is generally used to indicate systems for resolution and progress. It is therefore the role of an
communication between people by means of instructor to enable learners moving from dependence
networked computers. Despite its evident benefits, to ownership. This builds on Stephenson’s work
CMC is not always effective when used as an enabling towards a paradigm grid for online learning [7]. The
technology for e-learning. There is significant work aim is to align learners’ expectations with the intended
concerned with the identification of factors which best pedagogical approach. Hence moving from the current
predict successful implementations of CMC in higher “instructor controlled” “specified tasks” towards future
education [9]. “open ended” “learner-managed” learning activities.
A rather common technique of CMC in an
educational context is supporting asynchronous 2. CMC in e-learning
communication through bulleting boards or online
threaded discussions. Despite findings suggesting the There are several educational and technological
benefits of using such facilities, only a few pieces of issues regarding the practices of CMC in e-learning
work are concerned with the specific characteristics of and more specifically any CMC tools that are included
threaded discussions and their use for increasing in a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). Learning
effectiveness of e-learning and skill development [10]. concerns regarding the uses of CMC exist since the
early 90s [5, 6]:

Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05)
0-7695-2338-2/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
ƒ Content and Objectives – discussion, ƒ Student experience – there is evidence of greater
brainstorming, problem solving, collaboration, and spread of use of CMC amongst students in later
reflection are activities best suited to CMC. This years in their course [3]. This in agreement with
work is still at an early stage in order to early findings from undergraduate courses.
investigate the applicability of CMC to other However postgraduate courses can be comparable
disciplines and courses. only between two semesters.
ƒ Interactivity and Interaction Processes – message ƒ Clarity about task –consensus over what the task
exchange patterns support the perspective that involves is a major determinant of smooth online
communication patterns are more democratic and contact [2]. Tasks are clearly defined through
group discussion oriented than would be found in module handbooks and are highly structured.
classrooms. This can be testified by assessing the ƒ Ownership of task – students commonly become
impressive volume of discussion in several more active online as they negotiate roles for
modules, primarily due to the asynchronous nature themselves [1]. The suggested format in most
of communication and the use of participation as modules is for students to identify and allocate
an indexed repository. roles within their own groups.
ƒ Learning Strategies and Tactics – there is enough ƒ Need for system – use of conferencing resources
consideration of the actual differences on learning can be minimal or non-existent when students
styles when CMC is introduced. The analysed have little explicit reason for doing so [4]. The
modules are directly comparable with residential findings from this study show exactly the same
courses and an interesting finding is the time spent pattern. Use of communication tools is now
online compared to suggested study time for compulsory within the specification of learning
residential courses. activities for several modules.
ƒ Learner Control and System Control – CMC is ƒ Prior experience of CMC – all students
regarded as merely a supporting technique for participating in this study are highly experienced
learning, flexible to learner needs. The aims f this with communication tools both synchronous and
research is based on case studies that asynchronous.
communication is highly structured and becomes
part of the curriculum. 3. Initial case study
ƒ Outcomes and their Evaluation – a concern exists The foundation for this project is provided by an
with respect to the actual benefits of CMC on initial investigation involving a Computer-Supported
performance of students. This study attempts an Cooperative Work (CSCW) course delivered via a
analysis to online courses including assessment WebCT VLE to 16 groups of students. Each one of
before and after the introduction of these groups simulated the structure and behaviour of
communication tools linked to coursework and ‘virtual teams’, meaning that there was no
assessment. immediate/face-to-face interaction between members
who were hypothetically residing over different time
There is also enough work on factors associated zones. Among other tools, the teams were using a
with successful CMC resources in higher education discussion board to communicate over a number of
[9]: steps that were suggested by the instructors. Each step
ƒ Size of group – findings show small groups of six corresponded to specific tasks that were common for
students made more frequent, longer and balanced all groups. Group members were not allowed to alter
use of CMC [3]. In this study, all modules the series of project stages but could add further topics
including group work have a maximum of six as required. The resulting threaded discussion provided
members allowed. very interesting finding with respect to the
ƒ Knowledge of other participants – existing work communication patterns that existed both within each
showed that use of CMC for identical tasks was group and between different groups.
greater where participants were familiar with each As shown in figure 1, the same group could show
other [4]. Participants of residential courses are dramatic changes in the communication volume and
familiar with the most fellow learners. E-learning frequency based on the learning tasks assigned. It is
modules are supported by a Local Support Centres also obvious that two groups have significant
with a residential tutor and regular meetings, differences in the amount of effort they invest and the
providing the opportunity to group members at the communication patterns they follow even during the
beginning and throughout the project. same tasks. Eventually each group had to restructure

Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05)
0-7695-2338-2/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
their discussion patterns based on consensus. For 4. Method
example, group 4 had 34 message exchanges regarding
the facilitation of the group and even had a topic Initially the number of posts, responses, views as
dedicated to a group member and his support during a well as the frequency of interaction, preferences to
task. On the other hand, group 6 needed a summary certain posters, lurking and even the text size of
topic for the first three tasks of the project. messages were used to classify each group and its
student members. The findings showed that the
Status GROUP 4 - Subject stronger students were more active during the later
1/1 



 stages of the assessment or closer to interim deadlines,
Assigning a facilitator
while weaker students had a more consistent
5/5 



 Task 1: Competition communication pattern. However, the most exciting
results involved the association of communication
49/49 



 Task 2: Job Advert patterns with learning tasks and group formation. It
28/28 



 became obvious that certain tasks attracted more posts
Task 3: Centrifugal Force... in the group discussion either for clarification or for
34/34 



 interaction to accomplish a specific task. Furthermore,
Facilitator
the threaded discussion not only became busier with
2/2 



 A specific group member more posts and a larger number of frequent posters, but
involved the creation of more sub-branches from
2/2 



 Group 4 Home Page initial, root topics. It seemed that certain tasks made
68/68 



 groups proactive, motivated and innovative. It also
Task 4: Groupware Investi... became obvious that certain groups had a maximum
Status GROUP 6 - Subject capacity of effective communication while others
5/17 



 Assigning a facilitator could side-track to endless discussions without
achieving the actual goals. The later groups were
53/54 



 Task 1: Competition usually quite heterogeneous, with personal and cultural
32/33 



 conflicts leading to failure to reach rapid consensus. A
Task 2: Job Advert communication protocol had to be invented in order to
11/13 



 make decisions and solve problems.
Task 3: Centrifugal Force...
A number of factors affecting these communication
4/5 



 The first Three Tasks, Gr... patterns (FaCP) are identified as included in table 1.
Key factors are: (T) the number of threads showing
2/2 



 Are group six ready to st... cohesion, (B) the number of branches per thread
0/1 



 showing communication richness, (I) number of
tasks' outcome. initiators, showing proactive members, (P) No of posts
47/47 



 Task 4: Groupware Investi... per thread, showing participation, (R) number of
Figure 1: Learning tasks and communication replies per thread, showing interactivity, (Rs) number
volume of responses per thread, showing reactive members,
(L) maximum and average level/depth of discussions
Following from the main findings of this study, in the same thread, linked to clarification and passion,
some guidelines regarding communication patterns (W) Total Text Size and (S) Average Text Size for
associated with learning tasks include: posts in a single thread, showing contribution, (A)
ƒ There are certain communication patterns that are number of unique authors in each thread showing
directly affected by difficulty of a learning task.G involvement.
ƒ Group formation is a factor affecting These factors lead to the suggestion of a formula
communication frequency. used to provide a break down of characteristics for
ƒ Demonstrator tasks can be used to identify any every single thread of each group. In such structured
communication conflicts in early stages.G assessment the norm is that a thread corresponds to a
ƒ Based on their use of computer-mediated specific task. Therefore the formula used for the first
communication tools, group members can be task of group one should look as follows:
classified in several categories such as starters,
followers, facilitators and lurkers

Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05)
0-7695-2338-2/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
G1-T1 = Ȉ (T, B, I, P, R, Rs) + (L, D, W, S, A) Figure 2: Classifying group performance for a single
learning activity according to FaCP

The formula provides a detailed set of In figure 2 the 16 groups are classified following
characteristics and can be extended to provide details their performance for a single activity according to
of specific branches of the thread/task: different FaCP. An interesting observation relates to
G1-T1-B1 = the fact that there is no overlapping between group
total[P, R, D S(low) S(medium) S(high)] performances, indicating that most if not all of these
factors are linked. Figure 3 shows communication
These formulas are used to transform a rather patterns for a specific learning activity and the
unusable set of data from threaded discussions as differences between groups. It is apparent that there is
shown in figure 1 to a more meaningful graphical a number of clusters especially regarding posts, replies
representation of group behaviour and task efficiency and responses and there seems to be a regular interval
patterns shown in figures 2 and 3. between the different group clusters. This finding is
yet to be justified and seems to be linking to group
Factors affecting formation or even with individual participation to the
Communication discussion.
communication
elements
patterns
G15T1
(T) Threads Cohesion 350
G14T1
(RB) Root Branches Diversity 300
G13T1
250
(B) Branches Richness G12T1
200
G11T1
(I) Initiators Proactive 150 G10T1
(P) Posts Participation 100 G9T1
(R) Replies Interaction 50 G8T1
0
(Rs) Responses Reactive G7T1
G6T1
s

l
s
Clarification

es

s
(L) Max Level
rs

es
s

ve
ad

ie

se
or

st
to

ch

ch

pl

le
Po
th

re

on
G5T1
itia

Re
an

an
Au

ax
Th

sp
Interest
In

(W) Total text


Br
br

M
Re
G4T1
ot
Ro

(S) Average text Consistency G3T1

(A) Authors Engagement Figure 3: Classifying communication patterns for a


Table 1: Factors affecting communication patterns specific learning activity in different groups
(FaCP)
Finally the group clusters become more obvious
5. Results when analysing each group data separately. In figure 4
This study is concerned with the analysis of two groups show similar picks on communication and
communication patterns and CMC data in two more specifically on clarification and reaction for tasks
dimensions: (i) across tasks and (ii) across groups. The 2 and 4. However it seems that motivation,
objective of the research is to identify what constitutes participation and initiation remain the same throughout
a successful learning activity and success criteria for the different tasks.
group formation accordingly.
200
180 Max level
160 Responses
180 140 Replies
Max level
160 120 Posts
Responses 100 Branches
140 80 Root branches
Replies 300
120 60 Threads Max level
Posts 40 250 Initiators Responses
100 Authors Replies
20
Branches 200
80 0 Posts
Root branches G4T1 G4T2 G4T3 G4T4 150
G4T5 G4T6 Branches
60 Root branches
Threads 100
40 Threads
Initiators 50 Initiators
20 Authors
Authors 0
0
1

4C

6C
2

G 4

G 5

G 6
5B

G B
4B
2T

2T

2T

2T
2T

2T

6
2T
2T

2T

2T

2T
G

G
G
1

T1

T1

T1
1T

3T

5T

7T

9T

11

13

15
G

Figure 4: Two groups with similar communication


patterns for all most learning activities

Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05)
0-7695-2338-2/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
6. The Global Campus program Acknowledgements

Following these initial efforts, it is currently The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of
attempted to integrate the project in the Global Noorminshah Iahad to this study.
Campus (GC) program of Middlesex University. The
GC program uses mostly Web technologies to offer a References
distance learning mode for both undergraduate and
postgraduate degrees. This program has been [1] Issroff, K. and M. Eisenstadt, (1997), Evaluating a
consistently committed to an essentially asynchronous virtual summer school. Journal of Computer Assisted
model of delivery in which face-to-face tutorials, Learning, 13,245-253
deadlines for continuous assessment and formal [2] Lewis, R. (1997), An Activity Theory framework to
examinations are the only synchronisation points. This explore distributed communities, Journal of Computer
research study is focusing on the investigation of more Assisted Learning, 13, 210-219.
[3] Light, P., C. Colbourn and V. Light (1997) Computer-
than 50 case studies of courses run in the previous two
mediated tutorial support for conventional university
years and the analysis of communication patterns in courses, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13,
threaded discussions supporting group projects. 228-235.
[4] McAteer, E., A. Tolmie, C. Duffy, and J. Corbett (1997)
7. Conclusions Computer mediated communication as a learning
Some of the key benefits of this study concern the resource, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13,
facilitation of instructors in setting up successful 219-227
[5] Romiszowski, A.J. (1990) Computer mediated
learning activities, further supporting learners in
communication and hypertext: the instructional use of
various content related tasks, structure successful two converging technologies, Interactive Learning
discussions and evaluate existing questions based on a International 6, 5—29.]
certain set of success criteria. More specifically, in [6] Romiszowski, A.J. (1994) Alternative strategies for
terms of possible deliverables, the study attempts to: collaborative study of business cases by computer-
ƒ Suggest guidelines to instructors who want to mediated communication, Instructional Developments
create threaded discussions, especially for 4(1). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
identifying a suitable structure for a discussion [7] Stephenson J (Ed) (2001) Teaching and Learning
and effective discussion topics and prompting Online, Kogan Page, London
[8] Swan, K. (2002) Building learning communities in
questions.
online courses: The importance of interaction.
ƒ Provide instructors with the means for evaluating Education, Communication & Information, 2, 23–49.
any existing discussion topics and questions based [9] Tolmie, A. and J. Boyle (2000) Factors influencing the
on several success criteria.G success of computer mediated communication (CMC)
ƒ Identify which success criteria must be met for environments in university teaching: a review and case
each discussion topic and question so it can be study, Computers & Education 34 119-140.
beneficial to learners (e.g. the role of feedback in [10] Weisskirch, R.S. and S.S. Milburn (2003) Virtual
distance learning). discussion: Understanding college students’ electronic
bulletin board use, Internet and Higher Education 6
215–225

Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05)
0-7695-2338-2/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen