Upload
eleonora-segura
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Students’ Perceptions Towards Interaction in the Discussion Forum and Their Satisfaction with a Distance Course: a Case Study in a Non-Profit Organization
Citation preview
Students’ Perceptions Towards Interaction in the Discussion Forum and Their
Satisfaction with a Distance Course: a Case Study in a Non-Profit Organization
Maria Eleonora Segura
A Thesis in the Field of Educational Technologies
for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies
Harvard University
March 2008
Abstract
This research project focuses on the analysis of students’ perceptions of their
satisfaction with a postgraduate distance learning course, and in particular their opinions
concerning their interaction in forum discussions. The program under analysis was
developed on the basis of a model to launch a distance learning education strategy in
institutions that are new to this teaching methodology.
The case under analysis is a postgraduate distance learning course recently
offered by AEDIN, an Argentinean non-profit institution devoted to protecting children
suffering from neurological diseases. In 2004, AEDIN developed a residential
postgraduate course in Assistive Technology. Two years later AEDIN decided to
transform this course into a distance education program for which an e-learning strategy
had to be implemented and the course had to be re-designed.
Data for the analysis was obtained through different methods: the observation of
students’ interventions in the discussion forum, the results of satisfaction surveys
conducted among students, as well as the results from fieldwork based on focus groups
with groups of students.
The study revealed that when evaluating a distance program, students prioritize
content quality, exercises with practical applications and response times from course
facilitators. It also showed that group interaction is a desired objective by students
although not a prerequisite for them to feel satisfied with the learning process.
Additionally, the study helped to detect factors that may facilitate interaction and create
opportunities for improvement in future course implementations. The study also
describes the process involved and criteria applied in the course design as well as the
difficulties that impact dialog interaction among participants.
Even though this is a case analysis performed in a particular context that can not
be generalized, it enabled the application of a model to launch a distance learning project
that could be perfected in future implementations by focusing more on the creation of a
student learning community. The analysis of the case also shed light on the factors that
influence peer interaction and course satisfaction from a student’s perspective. Thus, this
study may eventually allow focusing more precisely on these aspects, which were
identified by students themselves, so as to contribute to the development of future
programs, especially in a non-profit environment.
v
Acknowledgments
This thesis fills me with pride and I would like to share this feeling with all the
people who made it possible.
I would like to thank Dr. Catalina Laserna, who has been my professor, counselor,
supervisor and who has acted as a mentor ever since I started my studies at Harvard
initially pursuing a Certificate in Technologies for Education and later an ALM in
Educational Technologies.
My gratitude to Stacie Cassat Green, the professor in charge of the first course I
took at Harvard. She guided me throughout the entire learning experience and beyond the
official academic boundaries, and she entrusted me with a teaching assistantship in the
first virtual version of the course “Introduction to Educational Technologies” (EDUCE-
102) at Harvard.
I would also like to thank my research advisor, Alvaro Galvis, for his guidance
and encouragement to go deeper into the conclusions of the case.
My thanks to Jorge Trujillo, my English teacher in Argentina, who has helped me
brush up on my narrative skills to perfect the quality of my work.
I am very thankful to my postgraduate mate Denise Grey with whom I shared the
entire ALM learning process. Thanks to her for keeping me posted on the master’s
program latest news and for assisting me at a distance.
vi
I also want to thank my family and friends for supporting me throughout this
tough process. In particular, my thanks to Luján who has always encouraged me to take
it to the next level by facing new challenges, and to Sebas who has read these pages
several times and has always encouraged me to go on.
My gratitude to AEDIN for letting the case be a source of knowledge. Thanks to
the postgraduate course coordinators and the entire academic team who provided me with
information to complete my work.
Finally, many thanks to the postgraduate course students who participated in the
surveys and the students of the focus group whose comments enlightened the analysis of
the case.
Thank you all.
vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................ix
List of Figures...........................................................................................................................x
Glossary of Terms ...................................................................................................................xi
I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
II. Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................4
Dialog in Distance Education......................................................................................4
Computer Mediated Communication .........................................................................8
Factors Promoting Interaction...................................................................................10
Student Communities.................................................................................................13
Tutors’ Role................................................................................................................15
III. Distance Education Model..............................................................................................18
A Systems Model for Distance Education ...............................................................18
Start-up Distance Education Model..........................................................................21
Stage 1: Context Analysis .............................................................................23
Stage 2: Distance Education Framework .....................................................28
Stage 3: Distance Course Design..................................................................34
Stage 4: E-learning Culture ...........................................................................38
IV. Case History ....................................................................................................................42
AEDIN's Institutional Context ..................................................................................42
viii
AEDIN’s Distance Education Framework ...............................................................47
Postgraduate Course Design......................................................................................51
AEDIN’s E-learning Culture.....................................................................................60
V. Research Methods ............................................................................................................66
Research Limitations .................................................................................................69
VI. Students´ Perceptions .....................................................................................................70
Course Evaluation Factors.........................................................................................70
Forum Exchange and Exercise Directions ...............................................................75
Factors that Impact on Students’ Participation ........................................................78
Other Communication Tools .....................................................................................81
Role of Academic Team ............................................................................................82
Course Community ....................................................................................................87
Opportunities of Improvement..................................................................................91
VII. Summary and Conclusions ...........................................................................................94
Summary Discussion .................................................................................................94
Conclusions ..............................................................................................................103
Final thoughts...........................................................................................................104
Appendix 1 Step by Step Guide ..........................................................................................106
Appendix 2 Focus Group Questionnaire Guide .................................................................107
Appendix 3 Surveys' Results ...............................................................................................108
Appendix 4 Forum Observation Rates................................................................................113
Bibliography .........................................................................................................................114
ix
List of Tables
Table 1. Forum observation summary ..................................................................................76
x
List of Figures
Figure 1. Systems Model for Distance Education................................................................18
Figure 2. Start-up Distance Education Model ......................................................................21
Figure 3. Distance Class Model.............................................................................................37
Figure 4. Postgraduate Program Modules.............................................................................53
Figure 5. AEDIN´s Class Model ...........................................................................................55
Figure 6. Class structure in the Platform ..............................................................................58
Figure 7. Sample of Exercises ...............................................................................................59
xi
Glossary of Terms
A.E.D.I.N.: Asociación en Defensa del Infante Neurológico meaning Association
for the Neurologically Impaired Child.
Assistive Technology: therapeutic treatment that uses assistive, adaptive, and
rehabilitation devices to promote independence for people with disabilities by enabling
them to perform tasks that they were formerly unable to accomplish. (For more
information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology)
Blended learning: is a common term used in e-learning and expresses mixed
learning, i.e. in the same course there are sections learned at a distance while others are
face-to-face.
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC): communication that takes place
electronically using computer technology.
Dialog1: Informal talk between two people or more who alternatively express
their ideas or feelings.
1 In distance education, the terms dialog, interaction, and participation refer to similar actions.
Dialog and interaction refer to some kind of conversation that takes place in the course environment. This
conversation or exchange of ideas can take place among the different participants involved. Additionally, a
student is said to participate in a course when there is evidence that he or she intervenes or takes part in
such course. Participation is also manifested by means of dialog or interaction.
Considering the above, it becomes clear why the literature about the topic uses the terms dialog, interaction
and participation as synonyms.
xii
Distance education: is a planned learning that normally occurs in a different place
from teaching, requiring special course design and instruction techniques, communication
through various technologies, and special organization and administrative arrangements
(Moore & Kearsley, 2005).
E-learning: learning that occurs through the use of Internet technology.
Interaction1: Mutual or reciprocal action existing between two (or more) people or
objects.
Methodology: a set or system of methods, principles, and rules for regulating a
given discipline. Method: procedure, technique, or way of doing something.
Participation1: Taking part in an activity.
1
Chapter I
Introduction
A.E.D.I.N.2 is a civil non-profit association devoted to educating and
rehabilitating infants and young children with neurological challenges. Supported by an
interdisciplinary team, AEDIN is an expert leader in treating people with disabilities.
This association has been making extensive use of assistive technology3 over the years,
and has thus become a source of knowledge for professionals in this field.
In 2004, AEDIN decided to develop a Postgraduate Residential Course on
Assistive Technology. Demand for the program turned out to be huge because it was the
only one teaching Assistive Technology topics in Spanish. Potential students living far
from Buenos Aires, in the country and abroad, expressed their interest in participating in
the program, but mentioned the impossibility of moving from their current residences and
abandoning their personal/professional lives for one year. In order to respond to this
situation AEDIN decided to transform the postgraduate course into a distance education
program.
2 As noted in the Glossary, A.E.D.I.N.: Asociación en Defensa del Infante Neurológico meaning
Association for the Neurologically Impaired Child.
3 As noted in the Glossary: Assistive Technology is a therapeutic treatment that uses assistive,
adaptive, and rehabilitative devices to promote independence for people with disabilities by enabling them
to perform tasks that they were formerly unable to accomplish.
2
By the end of 2005, I was hired as a distance education consultant to re-design
AEDIN´s residential program into a distance modality. As the Institution was new to
distance education, before starting the design of the course, I had to define the
Institutional Distance Education Strategy, i.e. the institutional philosophy and framework
for distance education courses.
The first steps of the project involved analyzing the organization’s context and
defining key aspects of the distance education strategy. A team composed of teachers,
program coordinators, and myself had to define: the contents to be taught, the type of
program the institution wanted to develop according to its background, and the
technology that would support content and communication at a distance.
Once the initial definitions were made, I started working on the course design
with a team of content experts. The design involved tasks such as processing content
provided by teachers, developing lesson materials and defining exercises. During this
phase, I focused extensively on the communication aspects of the program and got
involved in tasks such as defining the best medium to promote communication,
introducing exercises to enable student participation and interaction and training tutors in
order to facilitate online conversations.
In order to be completed at a distance the program had to be reorganized and
exercises included in the lessons had to be adapted. As the program involves a high
quantity of practice with patients, a component of the course remained face-to-face and
an intensive residential practice module was was designed for students to complete before
graduating.
This paper analyzes the process involved in defining a distance education
3
framework and the steps and criteria followed to design AEDIN’s program. Based on
literature and authors in the field, my thesis describes the model I propose and identifies
lessons learned throughout the project phases that may result in further improvements in
this particular case, which may provide insight for other distance education designers.
As my main concerns in course design were communication issues, I particularly
analyzed students´ perceptions about participation in the forum, as well as their
suggestions for improvement. In order to hear their opinions, I organized two focus
groups that took place as students completed their face-to-face practical module. I also
used data obtained from two surveys conducted among students done by the middle and
end of the year. Finally, I observed student participation in the forum in order to detect
interaction.
4
Chapter II
Theoretical Framework
My thesis mostly emphasizes communication aspects during the design phase of a
distance course. Therefore, before introducing the analysis of the course, this section
makes reference to the theoretical framework regarding communication in distance
education. In the following paragraphs, I describe Moore’s Distance Educational
Transactional Theory, the role of dialog in distance education, mediums that enable
communication, factors that have an impact on interaction, the importance of student
community, and the role of tutors.
Dialog in Distance Education
Several authors have stated that dialog is a fundamental need in distance
education. The two-way communication between student and tutor (Baath, 1980), the
dialog among students and instructor (Holmberg, 1981; Moore & Kearsley 1996), the
interaction among students and the cooperation arising from such interaction (Paloff &
Pratt, 1999) are central factors in the distance learning process.
Holmberg (1981) states that there is a specific kind of conversation called “guided
didactic conversation” between teacher and student. This conversation occurs in two
ways: through the dialog between both parties using the available means of
communication that the course provides (computer mediated communication, phone, etc);
5
and through the texts simulating a guided conversation (due to the way in which they are
expressed).
Moore’s Transactional Distance Theory (Moore & Kearsley, 1996), one of the
most cited theories when it comes to defining the concept of dialog, also refers to dialog
as a variable to improve the distance learning experience. Moore does not define
transactional distance as the physical separation between student and instructor, but as a
pedagogical distance. In order to overcome the possible communication gap and potential
misunderstandings caused by distance, it becomes imperative to guide students either by
means of dialog or course structure. That is to say, Moore interprets dialog and structure
as two variables affecting the learning process in the following manner:
• When the course structure is rigid (all the course elements are pre-
established), the dialog between teacher and student decreases and
transactional distance can be increased.
• On the contrary, if the course is flexible, students are given direction and
guidelines through a dialog with the teacher and transactional distance is
shortened.
• When there is neither dialog nor predefined structure, students should decide
by themselves how to proceed. This brings a third component into
consideration: the student’s autonomy (which is proportional to transactional
distance).
Based on several recent research studies, Gorsky & Caspi (2005) state that the
Transactional Distance Theory can be demonstrated only partially; however, they
6
continue to regard dialog as a key variable. After having analyzed different studies that
attempt to apply Moore’s theory, these authors discovered that such a theory does not
include operating definitions for its application and that the relationship between
variables is ambiguous. As a result, they proposed a theory restricted to the “dialog”
variable: the more dialog interaction, the shorter the transactional distance separating
students from instructors.
The following is a description of the different types of interaction4 existing in the
field of distance education. As a rule, interaction and dialogue are used as synonyms.
According to Moore (1989), there are three types of student-centered dialog or
interaction: student-content, student-instructor and student-student.
• Interaction between student and content refers to the interaction of students
with the course materials designed to acquire the knowledge. Adequate course
structure and content design together with instructor’s directions are required
to facilitate interaction.
• Interaction between student and instructor is based on the tasks the teacher
does in order to facilitate the online learning process: he/she introduces the
content, guides the process, stimulates and motivates students, provides
feedback and evaluates learning, among other tasks. Best results from this
interaction can be achieved only by training instructors in special distance
learning teaching skills.
4 In the thesis, when referring to interaction I mean group interaction among students and between
students and tutors.
7
• Interaction among students, which adds a new dimension to the interaction
observed in the first generation of distance education programs, refers to the
dialog among group participants. It is a collaborative exchange of information
and ideas among group members. The dialog level among classmates will
depend on factors such as course design (that should include activities meant
to motivate exchange of ideas) as well as on the role the instructor plays in
fostering cooperation. Ongoing interaction generates cooperation ties among
participants that in some courses may develop into a learning community.
Hillman, Willis & Gundawardena (1994) consider another level of interaction:
student-interface. Such interaction between the student and technology becomes
necessary because the student will have to interact with technology in order to have
access to the course content and be able to communicate with instructors and peers. The
interface should be designed in such a way so as to facilitate interaction. It should also be
friendly enough so that the student can concentrate on the learning process and
interaction with others rather than investing long hours in figuring out the interface
functions.
When designing the interface, it is important to consider that users have their own
ideas concerning specific interface functions and do not always perceive what it actually
offers. Norman (1993) describes people’s perceptions of what technology has to offer as
“perceived affordances” and he suggests that the interface should make its properties
explicit and visible to facilitate its use by students.
Finally, Garcia Aretio (2001) adds another interaction level between the student
and the institution offering the course. This kind of interaction involves factors such as:
8
administrative issues (registration, payment, etc.), technical support and program
assessment (granting certificates/credits, or students’ course satisfaction level).
Computer Mediated Communication
There are several types of technological media that facilitate interaction among
participants in a distance learning course. There is no single technological resource that
may be regarded as ideal to cover all communicative needs. The choices of
communication media vary from one student to another (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Chute,
Thompson & Hancock, 1999). In short, learning will depend on the students’ profile and
the course content and design rather than on the chosen communication resource itself
(Moore & Kearsley, 1996).
The CMC5 most frequently used in e-learning environments is text-based, which
can be categorized into two types depending on the moment of connection: synchronous
communication and asynchronous communication. Synchronous communication media
are those having a simultaneous connection; i.e. all parties involved are present at the
same time. Asynchronous communication, on the contrary, is time independent and does
not require all parties involved to be present and available at the same time.
Chat rooms, discussion forums6 and e-mail are the most commonly used text-
5 As noted in Glossary CMC means Computed mediated communication. See Glossary for full
description.
6 There are other alternative names for discussion forums such as discussion lists, online
discussions, bulletin board, etc.
9
based media. E-mail is generally used as a form of individual communication. Chatting is
a synchronous form of communication in which online conversations take place in real
time (simultaneously), and participants may interact in groups. The discussion forum is
an asynchronous form of communication that fosters group dialog where posted
comments will remain permanently for future reference. These different types of
communication media have several purposes, chat rooms may contribute toward
socialization among the members of the community, while forums are recommended for
debates and group interaction, and e-mail is a good choice to deliver notices or warnings
and offer individual feedback.
Literature emphasizes the advantage of asynchronous media for educational
purposes (Collison, Elbaum, Haavind & Tinker, 2000; Horton, 2000; Chute et al., 1999;
Katz, 1999). The purpose of the discussion forum is to make inquiries and generate
dialog interaction among participants in order to exchange thoughts and ideas. When a
new topic is posted on a discussion forum, participants have the advantage of choosing
when to post a response in accordance with their own learning pace. Consequently,
students have more time to reflect upon and create a response. They can also review
previous comments as well as the course contents before posting an answer.
On the other hand, chat rooms take place in real time requiring immediate
responses and do not spare time for reflection. Some students feel pressed to respond
promptly and doubt their ability to transmit their knowledge. Chat rooms have no
organized structure, thus dialog follow-up is difficult and students often feel
overwhelmed by unconnected conversations. Nevertheless, chat rooms can be important
in creating a learning community because they permit one-to-one conversations (Horton,
10
2000). They are complementary to discussion forums because they develop socialization
among participants and help members to come together.
CMC facilitates collaborative learning; however, by itself the media cannot help
the learning process to further develop; establishing an environment, an identity, and a
sense of group belonging are essential conditions to achieve such a purpose (Arango,
2003).
Factors Promoting Interaction
Presently, education methods are adopting a more collaborative approach in
which interaction among peers is highly valued and is key to the learning process (Slavin,
1995; Koschmann, 1993; Paloff & Pratt, 1999; Gunawardena, 2004). Group learning
provides an opportunity to interact with people from different environments and cultures
who contribute with their different views, experiences and interpretations. Such a
diversity of articulated and shared ideas becomes the source of new questions and further
interactions, building up knowledge among participants (Scardamalia & Beretier, 2003;
Marques de Oliveira, 2001; Gunawardena, 2004).
Nevertheless, the benefits of collaborative learning are not enough to trigger and
promote interaction. Results of a research study (Webb, Jones, Barrer & van Schaik,
2004), revealed that even though a high percentage of students (76%) regards discussion
forums as a positive experience, only a small percentage participates actively (14%); the
rest participates exclusively through reading and searching for information on the forum.
The reason for this is that even though students place high value on the content of the
11
discussion, they do not participate unless they can contribute with something concrete
and they are unwilling to repeat ideas already posted (Ke, 2004; Lobry de Bruyn, 2004).
Besides, interaction among students is goal oriented; it does not take place just by mere
participation (McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes & Vrasidas, 1999; Lobry de Bruyn, 2004).
These criteria match the opinions of Gorsky, Caspi & Trumper (2004) who argue
that, as a rule, distance education theories place high value on dialogue but this is not
applicable. In their studies, these authors emphasize that dialog is normally intrapersonal
(student with himself/herself) until the student comes across a reason to rely on
interpersonal dialog either with the instructor or with other participants.
Therefore, instructors should take into account and encourage participation in
discussion forums, a recommended form of communication to foster interaction among
students. Discussion forums with a low level of interaction discourage students and
eventually lead to an even smaller participation. On the other hand, a stable forum invites
consistent participation. However, excessive participation may overwhelm students, who
will then have to devote more time to reading posts (too many comments or extensive
posts) thus discouraging active participation in the long run. As a result, the role of the
online facilitator will be critical to motivating and keeping reasonable participation
levels.
In many cases, interaction with other peers in a course environment does not
come from intrinsic motivation but from an extrinsic specific demand required by the
course activities. Some authors (Shin, 2002) warn that mandatory interaction may turn
out to be counterproductive given the resulting interference with the student’s autonomy
(a characteristic feature of distance learning that allows students to make progress at their
12
own time and pace.) In short, students prefer that interaction with peers be given as an
option and not as an obligation. In spite of this, Haavind (2005) recommends that
instructors demand students’ interaction in discussion forums, and associates
participation levels with the scores students are given.
It is worth mentioning that there are other reasons why students may feel
unwilling to participate: when there is an overload of study materials; when they feel
there is no sense of community among participants (Shin, 2002) or because they consider
it unfair that some members participate more that others (Ke, 2004). The most common
participation barrier is the lack of immediate response; students feel unsatisfied when
they do not receive feedback timely (McIsaac et. al, 1990; Woods, 2003; Haavind, 2005;
Santilli & Beck, 2005).
Another important factor influencing participation is the technological aspect.
Researchers agree that students need support to clear the obstacles of technology in
distance learning programs (White, 2000; Stanton, 2001; Davies, Ramsay, Lindfield &
Couperthwaite, 2005). Due to the fact that students have different computer skills,
orientation and step-by-step guidelines are essential components to facilitate access to the
study material and to encourage interaction. There is a gap between people who possess
advanced computer skills and those who do not. Students having more experience are
able to find learning resources very easily, which results in greater autonomy and
interaction. These students are the ones who make the most inquiries and they usually
leave behind other participants with less experience needing more support (Chang, 2002).
Thus, the breach between experienced and inexperienced learners broadens even more.
Finally, the type of Internet access (broadband or dial-up) plays an important role since
13
students having Internet connection constraints will reduce chances of interaction.
Additionally, we should take into account that the support students need is not
limited to technological issues. Participants need to be introduced to the e-learning
culture as a new learning methodology. They have to become familiar with the guidelines
and procedures in order to interact online since a thorough understanding of the reasons
that motivate students to interact will have a positive impact on the level of interaction
(Horton, 2000; Ke, 2004; Haavind, 2005; Chang, 2002; Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005).
Student Communities
Dialog and students’ participation through CMC tools are elements that may lead
to the creation of a virtual community in a distance education course. A virtual
community is built on the grounds of common, shared objectives that require interaction
among community members. Participants interact in a common space using an identity
and a series of shared rules. Depending on the kind of interaction students may have, the
virtual group may evolve into a more advanced virtual community, such as a learning or
knowledge-building community.
In her investigation on building online communities, Brown (2001) states that a
sense of community develops among participants only if they wish to do so. Some
students in a certain course might feel they belong to the community while others might
not. Generally, students in a course come from different cultures and have different styles
(or languages). In order to generate a sense of belonging, students prefer to begin
working on more structured activities so as not to openly disclose such cultural
14
differences (Wegerif, 1998), and they would rather incorporate more independent tasks at
a later time. The development of a sense of community is a gradual process, and
community-building activities (Woods, 2003) can be visualized as a scaffolding structure
supporting the community. Preserving a space for personal introductions, giving
immediate and regular feedback, generating dialogue through group discussions, and
personalizing responses are some positive strategies when it comes to building up such
communal scaffold.
Building a community in a course is fundamental to creating online discussions.
The sense of community promotes participation and leads to collaborative learning.
Collison et al. (2000) suggests that online communities are healthy when participants post
comments on a regular basis, when there is a sense of identity and a shared common
language, and when cooperation becomes evident because members provide feedback
and support each other.
Some researchers define communities immersed in a course as “learning
communities” (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1997) or “knowledge building communities”
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). Beyond the differences that some theorists insist on
pointing out, both communities share the following features: the central goal for both
communities is the acquisition of collective knowledge, which turns out to be greater than
individual contributions. Unlike traditional classes, in which the exchange of knowledge
occurs mostly between instructor and student, in these communities discussion becomes a
means for exchanging ideas. Such exchange generates questions that push knowledge
forward through new understanding or further questions.
Additionally, students play several roles and exhibit different expertise levels
15
enriching interaction through the diversity of ideas. Depending on their level of expertise,
members can be defined as beginners or experts. Initially, beginners play a peripheral
role. However, their queries arising from inexperience are fundamental because they
force other expert members to revise concepts that had been taken for granted, and
consequently improve and refine the collective knowledge (Scardamalia, 2002). The
participation of masters, on the other hand, is critical to sustain the community over time.
Their participation can help to create community, but when they no longer participate
they hinder the formation of community (Brown, 2001)
Most students consider that the construction of a community is essential to the
learning process. However, research done by Northrup (2002) reveals that the most
important factor for students is receiving feedback and a prompt response from tutors
rather than interacting with peers.
Tutors’ Role
The tutor is responsible for interacting with the distance learning student in terms
of content and the learning process (Padula Perkins, 2007). Based on research and
experience, several authors describe the tasks involved in the tutor’s role.
Llorente (2006) proposes a complete categorization of the virtual tutor concept.
She identifies 5 functions necessary to interact in a virtual environment:
• Technical: knowing the platform and technological resources (the tutor does
not need to be an expert but he/she should possess guidance skills.)
16
• Academic: mastering the content, performing diagnostics and students’
evaluations, summarizing forum discussion posts.
• Organizational: establishing and respecting the structure, explaining operating
rules, keeping contact with expert teachers and with the institution.
• Guiding: guiding and advising students in the learning process, giving private
and public feedback.
• Social: encouraging participation; minimizing isolation and lack of motivation
scenarios.
Garcia Aretio (2001) defines 3 functions, all of which fit into the categories
described by Llorente: guiding, academic, and institutional functions.
Collison et. al (2000) states that facilitators should perform three key functions.
The first one is being a "guide on the side" facilitator as opposed to playing a traditional
lecturing role "on stage". The “guide on the side” facilitator will read all posts and will
only participate if necessary when guidance and support are needed to move forward. The
tutor should also play the role of instructor, especially by providing feedback. Finally, the
tutor is a group leader who should get to know and support students in the community
building process being himself an active participant in such group.
Lugo & Schulman (1999) summarize the tutor’s role in 4 functions: participating,
leading, coordinating, and guiding students’ individual or collective learning processes.
Lugo & Schulman state that the tutor focuses on learning rather than teaching; he or she
is not an expert transmitter of content but rather a facilitator of autonomous learning.
Padula Perkins (2007) adds that such an autonomous learning process can be achieved
17
via constructive criticism and guidance, which motivates participants to move forward in
the process of building knowledge.
18
Chapter III
Distance Education Model
A Systems Model for Distance Education
I first came into contact with the field of distance education back in 1999 during a
work experience7. Later on, when I explored authors in the field, I chose the Distance
Education Systems Model created by Moore & Kearsley (1996) as the basis for the
analysis and design of an e-learning course. One of the reasons that led me to select this
model was that it provided the theoretical grounds to develop my own design method.
The Systems Model consists of a flow process that shows the main components
that every distance program should possess. Such components are interdependent, thus
changes in one part of the system will have an effect on the others (See Figure 1).
Figure 1. Systems Model for Distance Education (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). This
graphic represents interconnected components of Distance Education.
7 I had my first distance education experience at BankBoston in 1999. My responsibility was to
implement e-learning initiatives in order to provide distributed training for more than 3000 geographically
dispersed employees in a short period of time.
19
The components of the Systems Model can be summarized as follows:
• Sources: The sources in a distance learning environment include the
organizational culture, the student’s needs, as well as the professionals in
charge of providing the content material. These professionals are content
experts who may either belong to the organization or to an outsourced party.
They are field specialists who act as the source of the knowledge to be taught.
When it comes to defining the content, it is important to take into account
factors such as the organization’s framework, mission, philosophy, and
history. In addition, given the costly nature of distance courses due to the
technology involved, students’ real needs should be analyzed in order to
justify course development.
• Design: Course design implies organizing the contents in a simple structure to
facilitate students' learning processes. At this stage, designers decide on the
objectives, activities, material layout and adequate communication tools. The
instructional designer, the specialist responsible for this task, coordinates
his/her work with experts in charge of the course content and graphic and web
designers contribute with their knowledge to make technological decisions.
The evaluation of student performance and the effectiveness of the course
design are also planned at this stage.
• Delivery: Material delivery can be carried out through diverse technological
means - e.g. Internet, CDs, videos, audio and print material – and they should
be selected in accordance with the circumstances. Considering that students
20
are located in distant sites, decisions must be made in order to select the most
effective media for each part of the instruction.
• Interaction: Throughout the course, students need to interact with tutors,
instructors, organizational staff, and other students. Therefore, communication
tools that allow participants to interact should be considered when selecting
the type of technology to be used.
• Learning environment: When designing a course, factors such as the
environment in which participants will take the course (home, workplace or
another place) should also be taken into account in order to anticipate possible
environmental learning obstacles. The design may also present the study
material in a sequence of short learning sections (self-contained segments) in
order to help students be more focused and avoid possible distractions when
facing tight learning schedules.
Moore & Kearsley (2005) adjusted their model and included a “management
function”.
• Management: This is the coordinating function responsible for organizing and
monitoring all the components of a distance education system. Coordinators
are responsible for ensuring technological, monetary and human resources.
They are also in charge of performing an ongoing monitoring of the program
and managing the cultural change that distance education demands.
21
Start-up Distance Education Model
I have been working in the field of distance education for the last eight years. The
experience I have gained from participating in e-learning projects and from the study of
field specialists led me to build a model that could be used to put an effective distance
education strategy into gear. The model is based on the components of Moore &
Kearsley’s Systems Model (1996, 2005) and is complemented by aspects proposed by
other authors. The final product is an extended model that shows an organized sequence
within a process.
When an organization is new to distance education, the project involves two
levels of design: the first corresponds to the analysis and definition of the organization’s
strategy towards distance education, and the second is the design of programs and courses
involved in that strategy.
The Start-up Model I propose can be summarized as shown by the following chart:
Figure 2. Start-up Distance Education Model. This figure shows the stages and tasks
involved in a Start-up Project of Distance Education.
22
From my own experience8 (Segura & Vaccario, 2004a), I believe that the first
crucial step for any e-learning strategy is to define the building blocks of the project,
namely the context, needs, and barriers. The second stage is to define the methodology,
the type of courses, and the technology to be used within such context. Many e-learning
strategies are frequently based on the selection and installation of an IT tool that is never
used because the underlying foundation has not been correctly identified. Many times,
failure to identify the right approach before the implementation of an e-learning project
leads to disappointment and disbelief in distance education as a learning methodology.
Once context and key aspects of the framework have been defined, the institution
can start designing the course and processing the content. However, the development of a
distance course is not just an adaptation of the content; the instructional design of
distance learning courses demands a different philosophy that implies defining course
structure, developing content materials, and introducing resources to enable
communication.
In the last stage, in order to set up the scenario of a virtual community of learners,
tutors should be prepared to act as guiding facilitators in a distance education
environment rather than just mere instructors. Finally, an informative campaign should be
developed in order to guide students into the e-learning culture.
The following sections describe each of these stages in detail.
8 I participated in other e-learning experiences which involved developing a first distance
education project. In those projects, I used the model proposed which it turned out to be an effective tool to
implement a strategy that continues to be used today.
23
Stage 1: Context Analysis
Background. There are several historical factors associated with the history and
background of an organization that can be used as a springboard to decide upon the
adoption of a certain e-learning methodology.
In their Systems Model, Moore & Kearsley (1996) emphasize that the
responsibility of any organization is to define the content to be taught in light of the
institutional mission and philosophy; in other words, program goals and concepts taught
by the experts should be consistent with the history of the institution involved.
Consequently, before the implementation of any distance learning program, the
organization should identify and assess factors such as institutional mission, potential of
the program to accomplish such mission, organizational culture to be able to adapt the
course contents, and experts' and teachers' philosophy in order to identify their
preferences.
Distance education programs may appear in organizations after a gradual process
in which a series of preliminary experimentation events finally lead to the adoption of an
organized, explicit strategy (Schreiber & Berge, 1998). At an early stage, different sectors
in the organization develop solutions pioneered by innovative instructors and staff from
IT areas. Their followers adopt and combine different technological options to develop
new programs. As the e-learning inventory grows, the organization accumulates an array
of available solutions and interdisciplinary experience which is collaborative in some
24
cases. Normally, at this stage the institution feels the need to establish strategic standards
and institutionalize the e-learning methodology in an organized plan9.
By exploring these preliminary events and stages that precede the
institutionalization of the new methodology, the organization learns from past
experiences and identifies positive and negative results as well as the strengths and
weaknesses involved. Simultaneously, people in the organization feel more committed to
the process because their experiences are taken into account, hence their resistance to the
change in learning methodology weakens. As an example of preliminary events taking
place prior to program institutionalization, I may mention the use of didactic videos, the
creation of self-study manuals, the development of CBT’s (computer based training,
usually in CD format), and reliance on more advanced tools, such as web pages used to
publish material for face-to-face courses, etc.
Needs. The implementation of an e-learning plan requires a clear-cut definition of the
organization's requirements in order to take the project in the right direction. More than
once, organizations embark on e-learning initiatives following a fad, just “to imitate what
everyone else is doing” or simply to take the leading role in the field rather than on
students/employees’10 “real” needs or well-founded reasons. As a result, organizations
tend to incorporate technology at random (Litwin, 1995).
9 This distance learning evolution curve resembles the four-stage technological innovation curve
proposed by Katz (1999): experimentation, incubation, commercialization and commoditization.
10 Distance education can be implemented for different types of target audiences; either employees
in a company or students in an educational organization.
25
E-learning might be a solution in some cases, and as Moore & Kearsley (1996)
state, it is important to determine the real needs that call for project implementation
considering its costly development. The following factors are traditionally responsible for
creating the need for e-learning implementation:
• Location: Geographical dispersion of students who need to access this type of
education. Distance learning reaches everyone for which commuting is not
necessary.
• Costs: This is related to the previous geographical factor. Nowadays,
organizations cannot afford teachers’ and employees' transportation costs
anymore. Consequently, cost reduction is an essential reason for e-learning
implementation.
• Training time: E-learning minimizes the amount of time employees need to
leave their positions unattended and at the same time cuts productivity losses
coming from employees’ transportation costs, employees’ absence from the
workplace and catching up on tasks.
• Ongoing training: The demand for ongoing training and “just in time”
practices is on the rise as a result of the new labor market conditions due to
either the drastic changes in task complexity or the high employee turn-over
demanding re-training of new recruits.
• Digital generation: The mean age of employees in organizations is coming
closer to that of younger people who were born and raised in the age of
26
Internet and belong to the so-called digital generation. These people are likely
to choose an e-learning type training.
Barriers. A common behavioral pattern that appears among the people involved in the
implementation of an e-learning program is resistance to the new methodology. Such
resistance or barriers seem to be related to either technological requirements or social
aspects in the organization. On the basis of what has been stated by several authors
(Garcia Aretio, 2001; Soomyung & Berge, 2002; Uñantes, Reynoso & Brescia, 2004),
barriers can be classified as follows:
• Technological: Participants’ and teachers’ lack of resources or limited
knowledge about information technology; unavailability or low quality
technical support offered to users.
• Cultural (personal and organizational factors): Instructors used to residential
teaching who express unwillingness to adapt themselves to virtual
methodologies; institutions that are not used to self-learning practices
(employees accustomed to live classrooms taught by an instructor); the feeling
of isolation that learners may have when there is no direct dialog with tutors
and/or mates.
• Didactic: Lack of a specific didactic design in distance methodology;
technological support in which navigation tools make learning difficult;
instructors with scarce distance learning experience; lack of content experts
when required.
27
• Administrative: Inadequate organization structure to carry out the tasks
incorporated by the e-learning system (for example, registration and online
payments, access to resources such as libraries or contact with the institution).
In practice, a closer look into such hindering factors reveals the following
considerations:
• Not all users possess the same knowledge about information technology or the
same possibilities to have access to last generation technology. Neither do
they possess similar learning autonomy. As a consequence, training of
instructors/tutors in this methodology is fundamental because it will allow
them to get adapted to the students’ different technological levels and learning
styles (Marturet, 1999; Garcia Aretio, 2001).
• Interaction and dialog among the participants in an e-learning program
prevents feelings of isolation and eventual dropouts. Even though e-mail is an
effective communication means it may sometimes produce feelings of “being
on their own” among students. We should admit that it is quite different from
exchanging opinions in a discussion forum and participating in a virtual
environment with a group of colleagues.
• A support team that may offer support and help users (Lugo & Schulman,
2004) is another important consideration. Training the staff who will perform
administrative tasks (students’ registration and monitoring; preparation and
analysis of statistical information; etc.) is of critical importance.
28
• Institutional communication plays a major role for which planning ahead will
help overcome resistance. Before launching an e-learning program, it is
advisable to give students some course orientation by sending a series of
informative mails delivered at regular intervals throughout a period of time,
for example, a welcome message, a description of distance learning’s main
features, a guide to technological resources, etc. Additionally, should the
program be implemented in the same company or organization, an informative
campaign could be launched among employees in order to let them know
about similar past experiences based on information technology. This would
prepare students to better face the new e-learning challenge and study
methods and would eventually help overcome cultural barriers. The tasks
involved in institutional communication as well as in the hiring process of the
support team should be carried out by the institution’s management (Moore &
Kearsley, 2005).
To sum up, the identification of factors of resistance to the new methodology
allows organizations to be better prepared and define possible solutions. In addition,
the fact of considering previous experiences in education technology is useful to
overcome barriers and contributes to meeting the needs that call for the
implementation of a distance education program.
Stage 2: Distance Education Framework
Once the organizational context has been analyzed, the development of a
distance/e-learning project requires the consideration of fundamental factors such as the
29
selection of the right type of distance courses, the methodology, and the technology
delivery mechanism. Altogether, these three factors will contribute to quality programs;
however, the absence of any one of them may lead to project failure.
Course Type. In order to better determine the type of courses included in a distance
program, organizations should carefully evaluate their specific needs. A mistake that an
organization might make when implementing a distance program would be to transform
"all" existing courses into e-learning versions without evaluating the requirements.
Extremes are not recommended; on the contrary, a good strategy would combine both
methodologies and include residential, distance and blended learning11 courses.
Distance learning does not rule out traditional courses. Certain topics necessarily
require a residential type of course. Blended learning courses that combine distance and
residential learning are a very positive alternative in cases in which the distance model is
being launched for the first time because they allow students to gradually adapt to the
new learning environment. Some institutions have adopted the term “hybrid programs”12
to refer to those courses in which some students attend “live” classes while others take
the "virtual” version of the same course. In this case, the audience is referred to as
“blended”.
The design of distance programs may include a broad range of content material;
however, there are some limitations to such content variety. Courses seeking cognitive
11 As noted in Glossary: Blended learning is a common term used in e-learning and expresses
mixed learning, i.e. in the same course there are sections learned at a distance while others are face-to-face.
12 Harvard Distance Education Program has “hybrid courses” and during my Internship I had the
opportunity to analyze communication within some courses of this type.
30
objectives, i.e. oriented to the acquisition of specific knowledge, comprehension, and
reflection are appropriate for distance education practices. On the contrary, programs
emphasizing attitudinal behavior assessment or requiring a hands-on application of the
knowledge acquired using equipment or working on patients are less feasible for
implementation using a distance learning approach.
The definition of the contents to be taught in a distance program is closely related
to scalability, i.e. the scale economy that may result from the implementation of an e-
learning program in terms of the number of registered participants in its online format
versus the number of students in the residential-traditional version. If design and delivery
costs of the distance course were greater than the number of students that will be able to
participate it would probably not be advisable.
Methodology. Each organization will apply its own methodology for e-learning courses
and its definition will depend on the institutional culture. For example: If the employees
show certain study autonomy, it will be easier to launch self-study online courses that do
not require the participation of a tutor/instructor. Once again, the importance of clearly
defining the context beforehand, i.e. the organization’s history, resistance factors, and
needs in order to define a suitable methodology becomes evident.
From the point of view of learning autonomy and independent study work,
courses can be self-directed (self-study) or tutor assisted. As a rule, self-study programs
are entirely completed individually and the student interacts solely with the content
material. On the other hand, tutor assisted programs are managed by a facilitator who
guides the learning process and encourages collaboration among participants. If the tutor-
assisted methodology was chosen, course directives should encourage dialog among
31
participants for whom discussion forums and other communication resources will be
fundamental tools in the course design. In these cases, the role of tutors will be of critical
importance to encourage participation and interaction among students.
When designing the methodology to be used, the project team in charge of
developing the distance education program should be taken into consideration. According
to Moore & Kearsley (1996), the team should be composed of interdisciplinary
professionals, i.e. content experts, instructional designers, and web/graphic designers.
Content experts are professionals who excel in the subject matter to be taught.
Their collaboration is critical in creating content material, getting information,
incorporating exercises and validating the material already processed. Experts can be part
of the organization or outsourced personnel; in either case, their condition is an important
factor to consider in designing the strategy since outsourced parties may imply applying
more controls to verify whether the content is consistent with the institutional philosophy.
As a rule, the content expert teacher is not responsible for producing the definitive
material since its processing has to be made through technological means (Moore &
Kearsley, 1996). Part of the methodology will be based on the definition of the roles
involved and on the recruiting of web or multimedia programmers qualified to do the job.
At this stage, the type of media to be used is also outlined. Although the design
can be modified at a later time, designers should first define whether the material would
be text-based, web-based, or multimedia oriented, including audio and video capabilities.
Such decisions will depend on the institution’s and students’ technological possibilities.
This implies, for example, that audio material should not be developed if participants do
not have PC audio capabilities. We should note that the more complex the technological
32
media involved in the material development, the larger the size of files to be managed.
Students with low bandwith connections may have difficulties accessing these large files
and their connection times may be considerably longer. At the same time, higher
investments in time and qualified project developers may become necessary.
Finally, another factor to explore when defining course methodology is whether
communication among participants will be synchronic or asynchronic. This implies
deciding on either forum discussions and mail messaging tools, or scheduled online chat
sessions in which students and tutors may meet simultaneously. In synchronic
communication, other technological options such as teleconference or videoconference
can also be incorporated. These methodological decisions will have an impact on the
lesson design.
Delivery Technology. Given the several terms that are used to define technology that
delivers distance education courses: LMS (Learning Management System), virtual
campus, e-learning platforms, virtual classroom, etc., for the sake of consistency in this
study, I am going to refer to them simply as “platforms”.
The selection of the platform in which the e-learning courses will reside is not a
minor issue. However, we should take into account that most platforms rely on similar
resources, namely content management, use of synchronic and asynchronic
communication means, and student management (registration and monitoring). These
tools share similar features and their differences lie in the way the information is
displayed, their flexibility to be modified, and the production of content.
33
Although required functionality is closely linked to institutional needs and target
users, platforms should meet the following conditions13:
• Content development: Simplicity to upload the course content and to import
courses previously developed.
• Multimedia support: Possibility to upload files in different formats, for
example, animations, videos, audio, and closed packages of other applications.
• Communication media: Synchronic and asynchronic group communication
resources.
• Evaluation and questionnaires: Possibility to generate survey-type
questionnaires and evaluations of different types (multiple choice and others).
• Users: Prompt student registration and easy management of students, personal
data and passwords. Learning process follow-up and report creation
capabilities.
In addition, when selecting an e-learning platform an economic assessment should
be conducted in order to consider the costs related to the use/purchase of the platform.
Finally, it is important to analyze compatibility with the organization’s systems
and equipment, as well as available technical system support to users and knowledge in
terms of maintenance and updating of the new system.
13 In 2003 I had to evaluate e-learning platforms for BankBoston (company where I used to work).
On that opportunity the training team prepared a comparative matrix of platforms considering the items
described. Since then, I’ve been using and updating this matrix.
34
Stage 3: Distance Course Design
The basic steps to design a distance course do not differ from those followed to
design any other ordinary course. However, given the distance learning nature of the
program, other resources should be taken into consideration in order to meet
communication needs. The design of a distance learning program involves the following
tasks:
• Content search: In the case of pre-existing residential programs that are
converted into a distance learning format, the course content legacy should be
analyzed and supplementary content material should be gathered. If a new
distance learning course is designed from scratch, the learning needs and
content to be taught must be previously assessed. All the available material in
all possible formats should be analyzed in order to thoroughly identify the
content to be included and detect what is missing.
• Preliminary design: It implies laying the course structure on the basis of the
information gathered. This preliminary phase involves assembling the
learning modules (in lessons or units), defining goals and support media for
the material, exercises and evaluation. The number of modules, duration,
frequency, and dedication times for each class are also defined at this stage.
Before the course structure is defined, we should consider the restrictions
imposed by the number of participants involved. A typical class population
will depend on the number of students that tutors can efficiently assist and
handle. As a rule, the maximum number of vacancies established in practice is
35
between 20-25 participants. We should note that in very small groups,
conditions will not encourage interaction.
• Detailed design and content processing: The detailed design stage seeks to go
deeper into the content material. At this stage, material, activities, interaction
instances, communication tools and media to be used in each lesson are
created. Designers have to decide whether the course content will be text-
based or based on audio/video. Multimedia products and respective
documents are also developed at this time. Supplementary content material,
such as links to Internet sites, is developed and/or selected.
The type of activities or exercises for each lesson/unit is also defined. These
activities can be communicative oriented such as virtual discussions, personal
reflections, and posting of opinions or home assignments to be submitted, for
example case analysis, problem solving, reports, conclusions and summaries.
When I design distance learning activities, I concur with Marta Mena’s (1987)
endeavor to make students participate individually and collectively with the
purpose of building knowledge through open proposals that promote
reflection and participation.
Finally, the design of the course also involves the definition of ongoing
monitoring actions and tutors' feedback as well as the creation of quizzes,
lesson evaluations, assessments, etc.
• Publish contents: Once processed, the material is uploaded into the platform.
Uploading content to the platform or website in a distance education program
is a milestone in the course design process because it provides a new
36
perspective of how the information will be presented. This new perspective
translates into the need to reorganize the course contents in order to convert
sequential material (paper) into a virtual format. At this time, other difficulties
that may be encountered are resolved.
• Work with content experts: From the very beginning and throughout the entire
design process, the instructional designer and the teacher or content expert
work together and hold a series of successive meetings. The expert
professional provides the content and fills in the gaps detected by the
designer, such as additional examples and case studies. The expert also
provides feedback and approves the original and detailed design of the course.
• Pilot test: I propose to carry out a pilot test of the course in order to detect
critical changes before its launching.
Based on my own experience in lesson design and after completion of several
course iterations, I created a “class model” 14 that exemplifies the distance components of
14 During my internship at Harvard Extension School (2002), I analyzed several courses belonging
to the distance learning program in order to better understand the course organization and communication
tools, to detect strengths and weaknesses, and to make recommendations for improvement whenever
necessary. For each of the courses I analyzed, my intention was to represent its organization graphically.
After several attempts, I found out that the diagrams of the different courses I had analyzed revealed similar
characteristics: all of them contained one reading/content portion, one section that involved group work,
and a third one that required interactive communication with tutors.
Later on, I decided to create a more comprehensive diagram that could be applied to other courses
offered by other institutions. With this objective in mind, I based myself on the Transactional Distance
Theory (Moore, 1996), and I tried to incorporate the three variables proposed by Moore’s theory into my
diagram: structure, dialog and learning autonomy. When I superimposed Moore’s variables on the sections
of my diagram, I realized that the content section and the individual exercises portion are aspects that the
37
a class, i.e. reading activities and exercises, and focuses on the interaction between
participants and tutors. The model I created classifies lesson components into the three
variables of the Transactional Distance Theory: structure, dialog, and learning
autonomy (Moore &Kearsley, 1996). As shown by the chart in Figure 3, content
section and the individual exercises portion are aspects that the student handles with
autonomy. At the same time, forum discussions and group activities, as well as inquiries
and feedback from tutors, correspond to instances in which dialog takes place. Finally, it
is the entire set that gives shape to the whole course structure.
Figure 3. Distance Class Model. This diagram represents components of a
distance lesson categorized in 3 variables: structure, dialogue, and autonomy.
student handles with autonomy. At the same time, forum discussions and group activities, as well as
inquiries and feedback from tutors correspond to instances in which dialog takes place. Finally, all
components constitute the entire course structure. The diagram I finally obtained is the one shown in Figure
3.
38
The new diagram, which I decided to call “class model”, is not meant to reflect
Moore’s theory, but rather derives from it in search of a categorization. It constitutes a
flexible model that I apply systematically to the distance courses I design, and can be
adapted to the needs of each course. I have used this model for the methodological
design of AEDIN’s postgraduate program (this will be further explained later on in the
program description).
Stage 4: E-learning Culture
Student Orientation. The bibliography consulted highlights the importance of creating an
e-learning culture within the organization in order to accompany the launching of the new
learning methodology. Authors recommend creating a series of guidelines, instructions,
and directives so that students become gradually familiar with distance learning practices,
the use of the platform (White, 2000; Stanton, 2001; Davies, Ramsay, Lindfield &
Couperthwaite, 2005), as well as the purpose and principles of online communication
(Horton, 2000; Ke, 2004; Haavind, 2005; Chang, 2002; Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). In
practice, these guidelines and instructions take shape in an organized set of documents,
files, and messages sent to students or posted on the e-learning platform so that students
may gradually understand online learning principles.
Tutors Training. At the same time, the academic team involved in the project should be
trained to perform a new role. As a rule, teachers are qualified in their teaching roles and
have developed the necessary oral communication skills to face an audience of learners.
39
However, distance learning calls for a shift in teaching methodology criteria in which the
facilitator’s mentoring role in the learning process should be emphasized (Lugo &
Schulman, 1999, Collison et. al, 2000; Garcia Aretio, 2001; Llorente, 2006). The
Concord Consortium15, an institution specialized in educational research, emphasizes the
need for distance leaning courses to be managed by an “expert facilitator”: “Expert
facilitation: online courses are led by a qualified person specifically trained in online
facilitation” 16.
To train facilitators in their roles I suggest designing an array of activities using
the same technological tools and methodology applied in the courses geared to students.
In this way, teachers will not only learn about and reflect upon their online tutoring roles,
but will also be personally involved in the entire online tutoring experience and its
implications. Tutors will get a hands-on experience in the use of technology. Such
experience will allow them to detect difficulties and weaknesses in the methodology,
allowing them to be able to help students more effectively. Additionally, they will
develop awareness of the feelings that the distance factor may cause in the educational
environment from a social perspective; experience they will be able to capitalize on and
assimilate into their own student-tutoring roles.
15 The Concord Consortium is a nonprofit educational research and development organization that
creates interactive materials that exploit the power of information technologies. For more information see:
http://www.concord.org
16 The Concord Consortium establishes an E-learning model to develop quality online courses.
One of its principles is ‘expert facilitation’. More information on the model is available through:
http://www.concord.org/courses/cc_e-learning_model.html
40
Community Set-up. In view of the importance of collaborative learning, we should take
into account that learners' sense of belonging to a student community is the first step to
successfully completing a collaborative learning process (Wegerif, 2001). It is worth
mentioning that building up a community is a gradual process and only after a long
period of active participation (Brown, 2001) will students be able to develop the sense of
belonging to the community17. Consequently, community-building activities should be
designed to accompany the process. Some actions recommended by Brown (2001),
Woods, (2003) and others are:
• Design guidelines: Students need to feel comfortable with technology for
which designing guidelines and directives as described in the paragraphs
above is a possible solution.
• Generate interaction beyond program: Interaction beyond program objectives
creates ties among students which help them discover that they have things in
common to share. Personal introductions at the beginning of the course, as
well as online spaces such as ‘study rooms’ or ‘forum cafés’ in which students
may hold private conversations with others, are examples of social interaction
instances that may encourage community building.
17In her studies, Brown (2001) states that students felt they had developed a sense of belonging to
the community after having participated in discussion forums of general interest. Brown establishes three
community levels that characterize its evolution: In early stages, instructors participate more frequently
until students feel comfortable with technology and discover things in common to share. Next, students
experience a sense of belonging to the community, and finally the highest level is achieved which is
characterized by the camaraderie acquired after intensive group interaction.
41
• Create online opportunities to bring people together such as chat rooms in
which students can simultaneously be online. Since one of the features
promoting distance learning is student’s time self-management, it may be
difficult to fix the same schedule for all participants; consequently, the
subsequent posting of chat scripts held by students is more than welcome to
benefit those who are not able to participate online18.
• Use audio or videos: Instructors can rely on audio or video resources to
communicate several concepts to students as a supplement to other text
materials Video/audio capabilities allow the transmission of oral/visual
messages that are not available in text-based CMC communication.
• Reflect on community: Planning ahead opportunities in which students can
reflect upon the concept of learning community and its benefits may help
students’ feel the need to build up such community. Likewise, students’
reflections on their own contributions to the community, as well as those of
other learners’, strengthens the need of community.
18 Weekly chat sessions are very common in Fundación BankBoston’s courses, an institution in
which I serve as a consultant. In these courses, scheduling chat activities in which all participants could be
simultaneously online is a complex task and consequently all chat conversations are posted immediately
after they are held to make them available to those missing the session. Students who do not participate in
those chats can read the script sessions at a later time, and those who do participate consider chat rooms
useful to review concepts discussed.
42
Chapter IV
Case History
This chapter explains the history of AEDIN´s case. It describes the underlying
process, the tasks involved, and the decisions made in order to convert AEDIN’s
traditional courses on Assistive Technology into an e-learning distance program. I
developed and implemented this work project using the Start-up Model of distance
education explained in Chapter III.
AEDIN's Institutional Context
The first step in the project was to understand AEDIN’s context and become
familiar with its institutional philosophy and expectations. For this purpose, I organized
meetings with AEDIN’s manager and with the postgraduate course coordinators.
Based on the information I gathered from these meeting, I will briefly describe
AEDIN’s institutional background, the needs that led this institution to implement the
distance postgraduate course, as well as the barriers that had to be previously identified
and cleared in order to launch the program.
A.E.D.I.N. is a non-profit association devoted to educating and rehabilitating
infants and young children with neurological challenges. AEDIN was created in 1965 to
provide support to the Neurological wing of Hospital de Niños Ricardo Gutiérrez
(Ricardo Gutierrez Children’s Hospital) in the city of Buenos Aires. In 1983 it opened its
43
doors to the community as an independent entity. AEDIN’s mission can be summarized
and quoted as follows: “We devote ourselves to helping neurologically impaired infants
and young children in an attempt to contribute to their happiness.” AEDIN’s vision is
“to promote the development of a larger number of infants and young children suffering
brain paralysis and other developmental disorders by helping them achieve their
maximum physical potential and overcome their limitations.”
In Argentina, AEDIN is engaged in technological equipment for communication,
learning, and mobility purposes. The institution also commits itself to developing
strategies to help impaired children and youngsters achieve realistic goals.
Supported by an interdisciplinary team, AEDIN is an expert leader in treating
people with disabilities. The entity has been making extensive use of assistive technology
over the years, thus becoming a source of knowledge for professionals in this field. In
2005, AEDIN decided to extend this knowledge into the community by implementing a
Postgraduate Residential Course on Assistive Technology.
Concerning the implications of assistive technology, AEDIN's coordinators
express the following:
The advances made in technological developments and in communication
sciences demand an up-to-date, front-line education geared toward health
and education professionals who commit themselves to people with
disabilities. However, university preparation received by Argentinean and
Latin-American therapists is not sound enough to meet the needs of those
who suffer communication disorders caused by motor, sensory,
intellectual or language impairments and who could eventually benefit
from low and high technology augmentative and alternative resources.
44
Rehabilitation practices are relatively new in the world, but they have
experienced rapid growth. These practices were first developed in
Argentina thanks to individual initiatives that are now being successfully
and enthusiastically accomplished. However, such personal initiatives are
not always grounded on solid knowledge, and specialists do not even have
the possibility of having quick access to the experiences of local or foreign
professionals so as to keep up with technological times.
New technologies have had an impact on the areas of positioning, mobility
and adaptation to everyday life. In last decades, the incorporation of new
materials along with the application of biomechanical principles resulted
in postural systems that functionally benefit the people with motor
disorders. Besides, the versatility of motorized systems for mobility
(wheelchairs with multiple controls, scooters, etc.) has greatly improved
the life quality of people with disabilities. Specific knowledge is also
required in this area of applied technology in order to analyze the
patients’ needs, as well as to identify the options of available resources
leading to improved functionality.
Technology provides powerful tools that help patients with motor
disorders make autonomy achievements. For several years, AEDIN has
been a local leader in technological equipment, and has committed itself
to developing possible approaches to the treatment of patients within a
cooperative model along with the family and the professionals that
compose the care support team.
Concerning AEDIN’s culture, its atmosphere is characterized by a professional
joyful attitude, friendly manners, and a colorful institutional image. AEDIN’s building
facilities, their walls and furniture, are full of color. This is also perceived in AEDIN’s
institutional logo, as well as in its webpage design19. In addition, therapists wear colorful
19 AEDIN´s webpage is online, for further information access: www.aedin.org.
45
uniforms to complete the setting. The language is very colloquial and friendly, and
people continuously express a lot of affection towards young patients, always wearing a
permanent smile while serving others.
Needs for a Distance Course. The residential postgraduate program gave satisfactory
results; however, the need to extend the postgraduate course to participants living far
from Buenos Aires demanded a change in the program modality. Professionals from all
over the country and neighboring countries participated in short courses that AEDIN had
organized while visiting different cities. On these occasions, or by word of mouth, these
professionals got to know about the postgraduate program that AEDIN had successfully
completed. When they learned about the course syllabus, they showed interest in
participating in this postgraduate course, but they also mentioned the impossibility of
moving from their current residences and abandoning their personal/professional lives for
a year. Hence, AEDIN's intention was to make this program extensive to participants
residing far from Buenos Aires. Nonetheless, several changes had to be made to the
program before it could be successfully launched.
Barriers for implementation. The different professionals involved in the project showed
different reactions to the proposed change in methodology. The academic team had great
expectations concerning the initiative; however, course coordinators emphasized the
positive factors of the residential postgraduate course, such as the emotional and
personalized contact with participants and the possibility of monitoring the learning
process, values they wanted to preserve in the new distance education model. Finally,
even though teachers had some fears (use of technology, response speed, establishing
bonds), only one of them proved to be reluctant to the new teaching model.
46
A demo lesson available on the Internet was designed to allow potential students
to have a hands-on experience and overcome the possible resistance to the new
methodology. Such resistance could be present not only in potential students, but also in
some teachers who did not totally rely on the benefits of distance learning. The demo was
designed with special emphasis on the personal relationships the teachers’ offered to
students in spite of the distance. For this purpose, photos of the academic team and
previous year alumni were posted, and an introductory lesson with simple colloquial
language was presented.
Another topic of concern among teachers was “copyright” since the digitalized
material that had to be uploaded to the web could be easily copied and distributed. These
doubts were finally cleared up as the course progressed and teachers finally understood
that the quality of the program was based not only on the text material but also on their
key role as facilitators and experts.
Another important barrier to sort out was the technological restrictions of the
people participating in the program. In general, broadband connections are not very
common in small cities in Argentina, thus connection speeds are slow when downloading
files. Once the program started, we learned that in addition to these factors, several
students did not have a computer and did not even check their e-mail on a regular basis.
During the focus group20, I found that the postgraduate program brought about a
technological evolution among students who decided either to upgrade their Internet
connections or buy a new computer. This barrier was a key aspect in defining the type of
20 The focus group was conducted at the end of the course and will be explained in detail in further
chapters.
47
materials delivered to students. In order to avoid a technology gap among students of
different levels or technical resources, non-heavy and easy access materials were
preferred.
Educational Technology Predecessors. AEDIN is a technology-oriented institution and
its professionals are familiar with the technical equipment and computers used for the
treatment of patients. Concerning technology applied to educational purposes, in the past
AEDIN's professionals relied on some tools that could be considered the predecessors of
AEDIN’s distance education program. These tools included videos of patients to train
interns and the development of CD-based case studies (containing both photos and
videos), which were used to make presentations.
During the postgraduate program taught in 2005, course coordinators asked a
group of collaborators to tape classes in order to start gathering content material that
could be used in the future postgraduate course digitalization. The taped material was
used as the basis of content in the distance education version.
AEDIN’s Distance Education Framework
Courses Type. AEDIN offers a variety of courses in therapeutic treatment. Apart from the
postgraduate in Assistive Technology (which is the longest course), AEDIN offers
shorter courses in communication or mobility. In addition, AEDIN organizes courses for
internship applicants and newcomers to the institution. However, AEDIN’s goal was to
include only the postgraduate course in its Distance Program in order to respond to a real
need: increase the audience of the course by attracting people living far away from
Buenos Aires. With this purpose in mind, the final decision was that AEDIN would offer
48
two kinds of courses: short residential-type courses that would keep its original format,
and a blended course (a combination of face-to-face and online classes) such as the one
designed for the postgraduate program.
At this stage there was a key question regarding which topics could be taught at a
distance with successful results. Contents were pre-defined on the basis of the residential
version of the program taught the previous year. Almost every topic could be learnt
online, but as the course relied on the analysis of patients, the course transformation to
distance format required analyzing this aspect. Course coordinators decided to develop a
mixed program with sections that could be learned at a distance and other portions that
had to be taught face-to-face. The analysis of patients was made through cases and videos
in the distance portion, and coordinators incorporated a face-to-face week exclusively
devoted to working with patients´ real cases.
In this stage, the program's possible name was also an important discussion topic,
and several descriptive terms such as “virtual”, “at a distance”, “semi-residential”,
“combined”, and "blended” were proposed. Finally, the term “distance” was chosen
because it turned out to be a more academic term than the word “virtual”. Although the
program’s name did not reflect the blended nature of the postgraduate course, its
promotion and description put special emphasis on the practical component and patients
case studies that were taught distance and face-to-face.
AEDIN’s Course Methodology. AEDIN’s residential program was taught by a group of
teachers who were individually responsible for one or more classes. Originally, the
distance learning version was going to keep a similar structure in which each teacher was
not only the course instructor, but also the subject matter expert in charge of developing
49
the content. However, such course structure would have posed some problems to
participants in terms of getting adapted to the pace and different teaching styles of the
professors in charge. Likewise, teachers might have found it difficult to monitor and
evaluate students, and although they might have been able to identify the progress in their
own classes, they would have missed the results obtained by other teachers. In an attempt
to anticipate a solution to these problems, the distance postgraduate program incorporated
the figure of a tutor who was responsible for providing ongoing guidance throughout the
course.
The academic team of the postgraduate course was finally composed of a group of
professors in charge of teaching the content and a group of tutors who performed a
monitoring function. The tutoring function was in the hands of a team of three
professionals who shared tasks and were responsible for assisting a large number of
students. Although students were able to interact with any of the tutors participating in
the program, a personal tutor was assigned to each student. This personal tutor focused on
the student’s overall progress and closely monitored him/her throughout the program.
One methodological aspect that was taken into account was the maximum possible
number of participants who could sign up for the postgraduate course. Considering the
tasks to be performed by tutors, and in order to maximize the assistance and guidance
offered, the total number of students was fixed at 60, i.e. 20 per tutor.
Teachers kept their roles of content experts for their own classes, and in this role
they provided content material to be developed. In addition, they were responsible for
assessing and providing feedback on assignments and responding to questions in the
forum that required their expertise.
50
In short, the academic team was composed of content expert-teachers and tutors
who relied on the necessary resources to meet communication needs. The academic team
agreed to the recommendation for asynchronic communication, and forum discussions
were used as the principal communication tool.
As I have already mentioned, the material selected for content delivery was user-
friendly. Most of the uploaded contents were text-based documents and quick access web
pages with few images or photos. Multimedia tools such as videos were used only to
present cases.
Delivery Technology. Another key aspect to be addressed at this stage was the selection
of a technological platform that could suit AEDIN's needs. The e-learning platforms
currently available in the local market have similar resources. Vendors offer the
following alternatives to users: purchase, hosting, or development.
• Purchase: The system is purchased and used in the institution. The buyer must
provide the necessary equipment as well as its own technological support.
This is the most expensive option.
• Hosting: The system is hosted in a service provider and the user pays a fee for
the service. Normally, such fee includes third party technological support.
This is a more economical option and may be hired for a fixed term.
• Development: The system is tailor-made to meet the user's needs. This option
requires equipment, technological support, and program developers. The cost
of this option may depend on factors such as whether the user has a systems
area to do the tasks required or whether third party resources must be hired.
51
Given AEDIN's characteristics and needs, the best alternative was to hire an e-
learning platform already available in the market. For this purpose, four platforms were
analyzed: two “open source” alternatives (this is the name given to free software
available to the general public without property restrictions) and two “commercially
available” platforms. All the platforms had a low-maintenance cost and belonged to the
"hosting" type category, for which it was not necessary to install AEDIN’s software, and
it could be run from the service provider’s servers. This alternative proved to be more
economical and provided the technological support that AEDIN needed.
I organized demos of the 4 platforms and prepared a comparative chart to help
coordinators decide on the most convenient one. Finally, the one offering the best
combination of low-maintenance cost, visual design and easy updating content was
selected. The platform of choice was Moodle21, an open source course management
system (CMS) that is displaying a rapid growth in the corporate and educational market.
Postgraduate Course Design
Information Gathering. The tasks carried out during this stage were basically gathering
and reviewing the course contents and materials of the residential course and focusing on
the available data that could help define the context of the distance course more clearly
(for example: communication style, previous courses promotions, available technology,
knowledge of teachers and tutors, students' profile, etc.).
21 For more information about Moodle, see http://moodle.org/ or http://www.kineo.co.uk/kineo-
news-digest/elearning-guild-lms-report.html to learn more about platforms market share.
52
Program Organization: Preliminary Design. The program was based on a previous
residential version; therefore the definition of contents to be taught was relatively simple.
However, as the program needed a practical portion oriented to understanding the
practices involved in the treatment of patients, the contents needed to be reorganized and
exercises had to be modified to serve this purpose (Segura & Vaccario, 2004b)22. I had to
design new exercises that could be completed at a distance through video observation or
case reading. In the residential version of the postgraduate course, students learned to
work with patients as the program progressed, but this was not an option in the distance
version. Therefore, working with patients was postponed until the end of the course when
a face-to-face portion involving work with real patients was added to the structure of the
course.
The postgraduate program on Assistive Technology consists of 140 course hours
in which eight specialized teachers collaborate on different subject matters. The program
methodology was defined as blended learning and consists of the following:
• 100 hours of distance education classes (on-line lessons, digitalized
bibliography, Video CD’s.)
• 40 hours of face-to-face classes, condensed in an intensive week (practice
with patients and in the laboratory using assistive technology resources).
22 I based on my previous experiences in the reorganization of course content when converting a
residential course into a distance learning format (Segura & Vaccario, 2004b). The process can be
summarized as follows: present material organized in modules, lessons, or units; adequate to the defined
schedule; analyze content and exercises and change the sequence of those that need to be taught face-to-
face; design new exercises for virtual classes; and add evaluation criteria for virtual exercises.
53
The Assistive Technology Program lasts one academic year (6 months) and is
organized in three modules: a common module and two specializations. After completing
the specialized distance component, students take face-to-face practical lessons. See
Figure 4 to understand the sequence of modules of the program.
Figure 4. Postgraduate Program Modules. The diagram explains the
sequence of modules in AEDIN’s postgraduate program.
Each module is composed of several classes and each class lasts one week and
requires a student dedication of at least 4 hours. The common module contains 8 classes
and the specialization modules comprise 16 classes each. Each class is taught by an
expert teacher, who develops the coursework content, readings, case studies, and
exercises.
The common module, as its name suggests, is common to all students and has to
be completed regardless of the chosen specialization. Upon completion of the common
module, students are split into two groups: one group takes the course specializing in
54
Augmentative Alternative Communication (which is internally known as HOLA) and the
other group takes the specialization in Positioning for Function and Mobility (so-called
VOY)23. Students have to choose one of these specializations.
Participants complete the specialization module and then take a residential one-
week course at AEDIN. During this period, students analyze practical cases with patients
and complete their final evaluation.
The program is facilitated by a team of three tutors that provide support and
guidance throughout the course. Each student is assigned to one tutor in particular, which
makes for a more personalized follow-up. A set of guidelines is given to tutors and
teachers so as to prevent overlapping tasks and avoiding leaving important issues
unattended.
The criteria used to pass the postgraduate course includes an achievement grade
based on participation and completion of assignments during the distance learning period,
plus a final exam taken at AEDIN upon completion of the residential week.
The postgraduate program is oriented toward health professionals of varied
disciplines: doctors, physiotherapists, language therapists, occupational therapists,
educational psychologists, educational science professionals, special education teachers,
as well as specialists in orthosis and prosthesis. Such professional diversity constitutes a
very heterogeneous target group for which the course contents must be flexible. It is
worth mentioning that most professionals working at AEDIN are women, and a similar
23 The names HOLA and VOY are the Spanish words used to refer to the specialization modules in
Communication and Mobility respectively.
55
ratio is observed in the postgraduate program in which only 3 % of participants are men.
Instructional Design. Each of the 40 classes in the postgraduate program is based on the
same class model24: one self-study section that students have to do on their own and
another section that has to be completed in groups. Additionally, the model offers
ongoing support and feedback from teachers or tutors who are open to exchange
questions and answers.
Figure 5. AEDIN’s Class Model. Class Model applied to the case under study.
As we can see in the diagram, lessons comprise several sections:
• Lesson index: It includes an introduction specifying objectives and a guide
that helps the student browse through the lesson contents.
24 Note that the “class model” used as a basis is the one explained in previous chapters, and it has
been adapted for this particular project.
56
• Lesson content: Course materials are text based either displayed on screen or
uploaded in files, and they are designed to encourage a didactic interactive
dialog (Holmberg, 1981) between the text and the student. Icons and images
make activities more enjoyable while photos and pictures complement reading
assignments facilitating the learning process (Garcia Aretio, 2001). Consistent
with AEDIN's philosophy, the dialog is colloquial, open, and friendly.
• Readings: The bibliography is either digitalized and posted right on the
course's page or delivered in CD format.
• Inquiry questions: Questions encouraging reflections and opinions are posted
along the lessons to pause the reading and allow the student to consider the
practical application of concepts learned.
• Exercises: Practical work assignments are generally based on case studies, for
example analysis of videos showing patients with difficulties.
• Debates and opinions: Lessons have a collaborative portion consisting of
debates, posting opinions, sharing case resolution or answers to questions
asked by the teacher. Each lesson contains at least one forum topic for these
objectives and may have more than one topic depending on the lesson
contents.
Following the guidelines of the face-to-face program, we worked together with
each teacher to turn their classes into distance education lessons. The teacher, in his/her
role of thematic expert, facilitated the contents to plan the lessons on the basis of the new
learning model.
57
Introductory meetings with each teacher were scheduled to fill them in on the new
methodology, the implications of the design stage and information processing procedures.
Several sources were relied on in order to select the lesson contents: some teachers
contributed with explanatory texts of the topics and PowerPoint presentations used in
their classes. To complement the syllabus, teachers provided images and illustrative
video taped cases which were attached to the reading material and Internet links. These
videos were taped after the parents of patients involved signed a written consent which
was specially designed for that purpose. Additionally, the eyes of patients appearing in
pictures and videos were covered to conceal their physical features and avoid
identification.
During the previous year in the face-to-face version and in light of the launching
of the program's virtual version, coordinators requested students' collaboration to tape the
lessons. Students themselves were in charge of processing the tapes and writing the
contents in text files that were complemented with their own notes taken in class. Several
teachers relied on the taped classes to contribute with material, which in turn demanded
additional meetings to validate the texts’ appropriateness.
During the introductory meetings with teachers, I emphasized that every lesson
should contain an activity to facilitate content comprehension, which included reflection-
oriented exercises and submittal of assignments. Since my goal was to promote a fluent
interaction among students, I highlighted the importance of dialog, and therefore
suggested exercises promoting interaction in the forum (Baath, 1980; Holmberg, 1980;
Moore and Kearsley, 1996; Paloff & Pratt, 1999).
The teachers also facilitated mandatory reading material, which was digitalized
58
and posted along with the rest of the course contents. Additionally, teachers were also
requested to make a short colloquial presentation in an attempt to come closer to the
students.
The teachers’ learning curve was fast. Initially, our role as instructional designers
was very demanding; however, as teachers contributed with more lesson materials and
thought-provoking additional exercises, lessons were built upon previous templates.
Once the didactic design and content processing phase was completed the
material was published in the platform. At this point, we tested several attempts of visual
organization of material in the virtual space in order to keep class structure
understandable and easy to navigate by the user. This process required a re-organization
of some files in order to accomplish satisfactory navigation conditions. In the platform
class structure is displayed as shown in the example of Figure 6.
Figure 6. Class Structure in the Platform. Example and description of files
and links organization in a postgraduate class.
59
I selected a sample of exercises to show the use of icons and colors. Course
materials were designed using a specific icon and color for each type of exercise
throughout the course. According to Garcia Aretio (2001) frames are useful to highlight
text and break monotony. Likewise, icons are signals that help students to identify a
certain task to be completed (for example, reading, writing, reflecting, etc.).
To resolve
To reflect
To submit
To experience an feel
Figure 7. Sample of Exercises. Images that illustrate the use of icons and
colors in course contents.
60
AEDIN’s E-learning Culture
In this stage, I performed two tasks that were critical in order to create an e-
learning culture in AEDIN. I was responsible for training tutors in their new role as
learning guides and defining a communication plan for students.
Tutors Training. In order to develop online facilitating skills, tutors participated in
training activities to produce a shift from a lecturing to a guiding role that could promote
collaborative learning (Haavind, 2005). These training activities are intended to prepare
expert facilitators to guide distance courses as suggested by the Concord Consortium.
Tutors were invited to engage in training activities in order to get hands-on
experience in their roles of distance learning educators. I created a training space that was
used to post reading material that called for reflection on issues such as distance learning
components, the resistance to this methodology, tutors' roles, and communication media.
Three interaction forums were created for this purpose: one to reflect upon “hopes
and fears”; another focused on the “tutors’ action plan”, and a third one was created to
define “the postgraduate course rationale” (this one was oriented to more technical issues
such as approaches to assistive technology during the postgraduate course). I played the
moderator role in these forums, and my task was to collect information to design the
guidelines and premises of the postgraduate course.
I introduced the forum topic about “Hopes and fears” giving the following
directions: “I’d like to know about your hopes and fears regarding the postgraduate
course. Think about your fears, doubts and concerns, and identify barriers and
preconceptions you may have. At the same time, think about your expectations, desired
61
achievements and goals.”
Comments on the forum revealed that the use of technology was what participants
feared most. One of the tutors said that her fears as a distance tutor were “… using
internet, participating in forums, using new codes… Anyway, I think that the
technological barrier is going to disappear little by little”. Regarding the time tutors
should devote to students, they expressed “… I fear the fact of not being able to respond
to everybody’s communication needs”; “… I'm afraid of not having enough time to
perform my tutor role!" Comments did not reveal concerns about the course content
because tutors were familiar with the material.
On the other hand, tutors expressed their enthusiasm clearly shown by the
following comments: “I’m thrilled by the idea of teaching the course using this
methodology”; “There is nothing that can stop me…”, “I feel it's worth the effort, and I
love the idea of AEDIN’s becoming an Argentine regional leading player in the field.
These are my expectations.”; “Being where we are right now is already a great
achievement. I love challenges and we do have what it takes to face this one! We don’t
need to fear… we have a team to count on!”
Concerning the learning process and practical applications, tutors expressed their
concerns about factors such as “… teaching students to analyze cases without actually
being there with them” or “… being able to confirm that students could learn the same or
more than in the face-to-face program”.
In the “Action Plan” forum, participants described their essential tasks as tutors
and aspects to be taken into account. My task was to gather their comments and design a
topic checklist that tutors could follow to respond to students’ questions. The final action
62
plan used in the postgraduate course had the following 10 key points:
1. Empathize with students who are introduced to this methodology
2. Give frequent feedback
3. Summarize and draw conclusions
4. Encourage communication skills
5. Help students to fine tune and speed up processes
6. Encourage interaction with colleagues
7. Help students reflect upon lessons learned
8. Relate topics with previous ones
9. Participate in the discussion as part of the team
10. Encourage students to increase their production and push
knowledge forward
If we analyze the items included in the action plan, we can identify concepts that
many authors propose for the role of facilitators. All in all, the value of such an action
plan lies in the fact that tutors themselves, and in their own words, chose and defined the
key points to be emphasized.
I believe that the reflections made and the interaction observed in these two
activities in the forum (hopes and fears and action plan) were very enriching and
contributed to preparing tutors in their role as distance learning facilitators. Tutors also
had a chance to express their fears and weaknesses as distance learning educators. The
action plan also served the purpose of providing overall communication and interaction
guidelines that had to be followed throughout the entire program.
Finally, the forum on “course rationale" resulted in the creation of a document
63
describing the philosophy of the institution towards assistive technology. This document
was sent to students and posted on the platform.
Student Orientation. The bibliography consulted emphasizes the importance of creating a
set of guidelines, instructions and explanations that students could use to become familiar
with the distance learning methodology. These guidelines should inform participants
about platform basics and course navigation tools so that they can sort out the obstacles
imposed by technology. At the same time, forum participation objectives should be
explicitly stated. Participants need to become familiar with the rules and procedures
governing online interaction. Participants dialog can be encouraged as long as the
underlying reasons motivating students’ interaction are fully understood.
Considering all these factors, AEDIN launched a communication campaign in
order to introduce students to the postgraduate distance program. Such a campaign
consisted of a series of orientation guides and e-mail messages that were gradually
delivered to students starting weeks before the program began. The sequence of
informative messages was as follows:
• Message 1: Welcome message. This welcome message was sent a month
before the program started and it included the file attachment entitled: “What
is AEDIN's distance education program?” wich explained the distance
education study methodology.
• Message 2: Log-in information. The second message indicating username and
password was delivered the following week (that is 3 weeks before
64
launching). A file called "Step by Step Guide”25 was attached to the message.
The guide was a sequential explanation of the steps to access the platform and
how classes were organized.
• Message 3: A week later, a third message included an invitation to participate
in the forum. A two weeks period was granted to publish personal
introductions in the forum with in order to accomplish two goals: generate
bonds among students and enable the user to test the technology prior to
course start dates.
• Message 4: A fourth message specified the tutors’ role and assigned a
personal tutor to each student.
• Message 5 and onwards: Weekly messages announcing the posting of a new
lesson and reminders of assignments deadlines.
Once the course was in progress, the file document entitled “What do we expect
from forum participation?” was sent to all participants. The contents of the document
intended to explain to students the goals of interaction and promote an active
participation. It described how to participate by reading, responding, and taking risks in
the comments. Unfortunately, as reported by students in the focus group, this informative
guide had a negative impact since they felt they were being reprimanded rather than
motivated.
Community Set-up. It is worth mentioning that tasks developed in this stage, such as
preparation and delivery of messages and guidelines, creation of a space for personal
25 See Appendix 1: Step by Step Guide.
65
introductions, and the training of tutors in their roles as facilitators, generate community-
building instances that facilitate the establishment of a community among students.
In Chapter VI, I will analyze students´ perceptions on the postgraduate course on
the basis of results obtained from surveys, interviews, and observation.
66
Chapter V
Research Methods
This thesis is a qualitative study based on a combination of sources to collect
information that will further validate the data gathered. Three research methods were
used: observation of student participation in the discussion forum, surveys conducted by
the institution among students, and interviews with students.
a) Surveys: AEDIN conducted two surveys26 in the postgraduate program, one of
them upon completion of the basic module and the other upon completion of the
specialization module. The satisfaction survey contained questions about students’
perceptions of course design, use of technology, communication among tutors, teachers
and students, and overall scores among others.
Surveys were posted online and results were retrieved directly form the platform.
The response percentage was high for both surveys: 64% in the initial survey and 78% in
the second.
The surveys provided quantitative results since all questions had multiple-choice
options and there were no open questions allowing comments or suggestions. Most
questions had 4 possible answers: very good, good, fair, and bad, and some of them
allowed other options (for example: yes, no, not yet). Most questions were included in
26 See Appendix 3: Surveys’ Results.
67
both surveys for which the information gathered can be shown comparatively indicating
an increase or a decrease. In order to facilitate the exposure of results, I normally make a
reference to the average of both surveys. Some questions are not comparable because
they were asked only at the beginning to avoid redundancy or were added only to the
second survey.
b) Interviews: Taking advantage of the face-to-face week when all students
traveled to attend classes in Buenos Aires, I organized personal interviews with them. For
such interviews I used the focus group technique. All students were informed about the
purpose of this research study and invited to volunteer. I organized two focus groups with
8 students each on the basis of their willingness to participate.
Before the interviews, I devised a brief discussion guide27 with generative open
questions focusing on the topics of conversation (see detail below) in order to promote
interaction. The same guide was used in both sessions, and I took notes and recorded
participants’ reflections for further analysis. In addition, I prepared a text in order to
explain the focus group purpose to participants. I opened the group sessions as follows:
“The purpose of this focus group is to learn about your opinions and
perceptions of the Postgraduate Distance Program.
The focus group allows us to gather information through discussion and
participation. In general terms, our conversation will be based on a
guided questionnaire consisting of open questions. The moderator will
play a neutral role so as not to influence participants’ contributions (the
moderator must not give information or explain his/her point of view).
27 See Appendix 2: Focus Group Guide.
68
Regarding the focus procedure, I plan to take notes during the meeting. I
will also record the session in order to facilitate subsequent follow-up to
my notes and keep a record of all the data gathered. I will ask open
triggering questions that you may answer in any order as you would in an
informal conversation.
Since we have a limited amount of time to complete our tasks, I might stop
the debate and redirect the conversation in order to cover all topics.”
The topics of conversation during the focus group where:
• Factors taken into account in order to evaluate the course
• Perception of dialog and interaction among group participants
• Factors that encouraged or discouraged participation in the forum
• Aspects of interaction with peers that may be improved
• Aspects of the course that could be improved
c) Observation: Observation, also called data triangulation, is a valuable method
that validates the data gathered more accurately than do surveys and interviews in which
people normally tend to respond subjectively.
In this research work, observation resulted in the analysis of students’
participation in the discussion forum. In each class of the common module, I analyzed
students’ interventions in the forum and online activity instructions in terms of the degree
of participation they were expected to generate. I also monitored the reading of forum
posts, and interaction with other students/other posted responses. The reviewed sample
included 16 forums with open participation to all 60 students.
69
Research Limitations
Before the analysis and in order to avoid a biased analysis of the case, I identified
the limitations that could have affected the results of the study. Data gathered in
interviews and surveys could sometimes contain subjective perceptions and assumptions;
however, data triangulation reduced the risk of biased interpretations. Besides, there was
a possibility that people interviewed could feel influenced by the investigation’s type of
question and could therefore respond with certain tendency in favor of the course design.
In order to solve this situation, I explained to respondents that there were neither correct
nor incorrect answers, and that I would diminish my interventions during interviews to
avoid any possible bias. Validating students’ comments with survey results and forum
observations produced better data quality.
Furthermore, it was important to consider my own bias towards the study’s
results. I am a Distance Education Specialist, and as such I was hired by AEDIN to
develop this particular postgraduate course. Being responsible for the design team, I
could feel affected by negative results. However, the results were not negative and
allowed me to learn about improvements that could be introduced in future
implementations of the postgraduate distance course. Moreover, the lessons learned
contributed to increasing my knowledge as a specialist in distance education.
70
Chapter VI
Students´ Perceptions
The results of this study show students’ opinions regarding AEDIN’s
postgraduate distance course and their perceptions of forum participation. My purpose is
to reflect upon comments students made during the focus group experience, compare
them with survey opinions, and establish relationships with my forum observations. The
purpose of such comparisons was to detect whether students’ opinions and behavioral
patterns obtained through different methods go in the same direction or not, and analyze
the possible causes that may explain students’ perceptions.
A total of 68 students were registered in the postgraduate course and only 8
dropped out. Sixty percent of the students elected the HOLA specialization and the rest
chose the VOY module. Only 2 people of the group were men, one in each module.
In order to present the data, I grouped students´ perceptions in seven categories:
course evaluation factors, forum exchange, other communication medium, tutors’ role,
course community, and improvement opportunities.
Course Evaluation Factors
Students in the postgraduate distance program showed a high level of satisfaction,
the final survey revealed that 91% of students were “very” satisfied, and 9% were
“fairly” satisfied. Concerning course overall assessment, at the beginning 76% rate the
71
program as very good and 24% as good. As the course progressed, the number of “very
good” responses increased to finally reach 87% by the end.
In order to identify the factors that students’ took into consideration to evaluate
the program, I analyzed focus group comments as well as survey results. The focus group
analysis revealed that when evaluating the distance course, students mentioned three
principal factors spontaneously: content quality, practical exercises, and response time.
Students considered that content quality was the key determinant when evaluating
the course (12 students mentioned this aspect as the predominant factor). I should point
out that the content quality factor emerged spontaneously. It was not suggested on a
multiple-choice list; it resulted from the responses given to an open question. The
importance of this factor was also reflected in the final survey in which 94% of
participants rated content quality as "very good", thus this category got the highest
percentage score in the survey.
Other factors related to content were also mentioned by the focus group. Students
emphasized not only the quality, but also the amount of information. They also
highlighted the importance of recommended bibliography, which was crucial to those
living far away from the centers where more updated material is normally available. A
student stated the following: "when someone lives far away, it is quite difficult to have
access to new ideas, and as we all know AEDIN is constantly searching for new things
and makes a careful selection of the material.” Updated information was another factor
that students seemed to take into account. A student reflected his/her view in this regard:
"The material was updated, and bibliography was not redundant even for those working
in this field."
72
Additionally, students showed satisfaction with content clarity, and they
emphasized the course’s effectiveness in transmitting practical concepts in theoretical
terms. A student reported: "I wonder how they were able to reflect practical concepts by
means of something so theoretical as a text", clearly emphasizing the importance of the
hands-on experience component in the course.
As can be seen here, students spontaneously emphasized the importance of the
practical application of what was learned, and they highlighted the methodology used in
work-based assignments as another important evaluation factor. This issue also stood out
in the survey in which all participants answered that lessons learned had been very useful
in their daily tasks at work. In the last survey, 100% of students agreed that exercises
were useful for their daily clinical practice. Only 86% had agreed on this response in the
first survey while 14% answered that they did not know whether it was applicable. This
variance can be explained by the fact that at an early stage some students may be unsure
about the practical applications of the proposed exercises, and their perceptions might
change at the end when their knowledge is increased.
Another important aspect students pondered when evaluating the course was the
tutor's prompt response time in answering their queries (aspect that they had
spontaneously mentioned in the focus group). This finding is also supported by previous
research (Northrup, 2002): receiving feedback and prompt response is the most important
factor for students. In the survey, 55% of students (average of survey 1 and 2) indicated
that the average response time was between 2-3 days, and we may assume that this would
be an adequate response time span for students to feel satisfied. Students asked questions
either by e-mail or forum posts; however, they showed their preference for e-mail
73
questions because they felt that they could get even faster responses. Nevertheless, they
also stated that practical assignments were not returned as promptly, and as a result they
sometimes fell behind in their assignments. In this regard, a student expressed “The
answer of exercises arrived two or three weeks later”, “that was late” another person
replied.
Although course design did not spontaneously arise as a course evaluation key
factor in the focus group, comments validated by survey results emphasized aspects of
the course design, such as content quality and exercises. In addition, there was a specific
question in the survey regarding design and organization quality. This category was rated
as “very good” by 74% of students at the beginning and by 89% upon completion. This
variance may obey to several causes: students’ adaptation to technology, new features
introduced in the design, or the improved assistance offered by the academic team.
We should point out that the course design was subject to two important changes
that had an effect on quality and design. Such changes may have been the reason for the
higher rating in course design shown by the survey. On the one hand lessons, which had
been previously presented on web pages, were converted to Word document format to
facilitate the handling of files, such as document printing, which was a major concern
among participants.
On the other hand, the delivery of a CD that included bibliography had a positive
impact on the program since students were able to consult documents offline, shortening
connection times. The CD also contained videos of real case studies which had been
presented in text format during the first module and later converted into videos. This
multimedia enhancement, which allowed students to watch actual cases, made a
74
significant difference. According to Garcia Aretio (2001), the use of audiovisual material
improves the quality of the material to be presented since it facilitates the comprehension
of complex concepts, reinforces the concepts explained via other media, and motivates
students by reducing the complexity of written text.
Additionally, students’ perceptions of improvements in course design may also
indicate their adaptation to technology 28. In early stages, participants have to assimilate
the technology imposed by the new methodology, thus their efforts focus mostly on
sorting out technological barriers, clearing up doubts on distance learning education, and
overcoming isolation feelings and lack of autonomy. Analysis of the surveys revealed
that students became more adapted to technology as the course progressed since the
number of students who previously regarded the platform as complex or simple, ended up
considering it as "very simple” (the second survey shows a 9% increase in the number of
students who rated it “very simple”). Even though the technologhy used was the same,
the passing of time and students’ adaptation to technology made them perceive an
improvement in the technological environment, navigation, and access tools. In the focus
group, only a few comments were made either on the support platform or on the visual
format of the study material on screen, and participants concurred that the design was
good and the platform was user friendly.
28 A similar trend was observed in a previous case (Segura & Vaccario, 2004b). On this occasion, I
identified that technical difficulties appear early in the program (normally during the first three classes). As
such difficulties are gradually sorted out, students do not focus on technical aspects anymore, but on the
contents proper. Taking these facts into consideration, AEDIN’s program included opening lessons
requiring less content effort, and at the same time it enabled to test the technology in the first place, for
example, we dedicated two weeks were devoted to personal introductions through the forum.
75
Forum Exchange and Exercise Directions
In the survey, only 37% of students regarded the forum as a “very good”
information exchange tool; 54% rated it as “good” and 9% as “fair”. These results are
low compared to other aspects of the course. Focus group analysis, data from surveys,
and forum observation will help us to clarify students’ opinions.
All classes of the program included one or more debate topics in the forum, and
the specific directions given to solve the exercises demanded some kind of participation
in these forum topics. In this sense, students believed that: “participation was irregular”
and that “it all depended on the forums and on the topics posted.” An analysis of forum
discussions confirmed that student participation turned out to be variable. Some forum
activities reached peaks of 47 students out of the total 60 students, and others showed low
participation levels with just 11 comments. As an average, 53% of the students
participated in the forums as we can see in Table 1. Table 1 shows a summary of
students´ behavior in the forum, indicating responses and participation rates per forum
and per class29.
29 For more information on forum observation, see Appendix 4: Forum Observation Rates.
76
Class Forum Responses People Students % Students
participation Participation
per class
Participation hand-in vs. not hand-in
1 1 61 48 47 78.33% 60.83% 50.71% 2 32 27 26 43.33%
2 3 39 35 34 56.67% 56.67% 3 4 30 29 29 48.33% 48.33% 4 5 18 12 11 18.33% 42.78% 6 59 42 41 68.33% 7 37 26 25 41.67%
5 8 39 31 30 50.00% 57.22% 55.00% 9 68 41 40 66.67% 10 38 34 33 55.00%
6 11 39 32 31 51.67% 51.67% 7 12 59 47 45 75.00% 61.11% 13 35 33 31 51.67% 14 36 35 34 56.67%
8 15 29 29 29 48.33% 44.17% 16 37 27 24 40.00% Average 41.00 33.00 31.88 53.13%
Table 1. Forum Observation Summary. The table shows a summary of students’
responses and participation percentages.
Every lesson contained more than one forum topic consisting of an exercise with
a set of instructions stated in the lesson. A closer view into the lesson exercises and
instructions provided evidence to understand forum participation. The directions given to
complete the lesson exercises varied from one forum to another, generating different
reactions in participants and as a consequence a variance in participation percentages.
The following is an example of activities with high participation levels: the directions
given in lesson 1 instructed students to “participate in the forum mentioning other
participants…”. In this case, 78% of students responded to the post which showed the
highest participation rate among the forums observed. Instructions to a forum discussion
in lesson 4 demanded that students “post the resolution on the forum, read other
77
students' resolutions and interact as a group exchanging opinions", and in this activity
student participation was 68%. In class 5, in which directions instructed students to “post
the analysis on the forum and share results with mates", the participation ratio was 66%.
Finally, a forum discussion activity in lesson 7, which required that students “analyze the
case and post results in the forum”, showed a 75% participation.
Forums showing lower participation ratios were introduced through sets of
instructions such as: “make a comment in the forum", "give your opinion in the forum" or
"make a comment on the results in the forum”. In general, these forums scored a 51%
average participation or lower. We also observed cases in which directions did not
expressly require to make any comments for which they naturally showed low
participation levels. As an example, forum activities in class 4 and 8 reflected 18% and
40% student participation respectively.
Another factor that had an impact on participation levels was related to the
number and type of exercises included in each lesson. Apart from forum debates, the first
4 classes also included a case resolution assignment to be submitted. We may interpret
that this difference in the lesson structure was also reflected in participation levels which
reached an average of 50% in activities requiring the submission of assignments and 55%
in those which were solely based on the forum.
Summarizing, I may conclude that students’ behavior in terms of participation in
the forum activities varied depending on the directions given, on the number of exercises
contained in the lesson, and on the debate topic. An assignment requiring submission
may reduce students’ participation in the forum since students concentrated efforts and
time to meet the requirements of such assignment. In addition, I may also add that
78
students perceived case study activities as “mandatory” for which the directions given
were taken as more forceful than those demanding only an exchange of opinions.
Factors that Impact on Students’ Participation
In the focus group, students identified various factors that had an impact on their
participation. They stated that they were not aware of the rules in terms of participation
because they were beginners in the e-learning methodology (in the survey 86% of
participants expressed that it was their first e-learning experience). Some students
believed that they were supposed to participate in the forum just by giving an answer to a
question. Other participants thought that they would be evaluated on the basis of the
posted response rather than on the mere fact of having participated. As a result, they
answered questions overlooking previous responses that could have enriched their views;
thus, interaction disappeared. An important point was the wording of the directions given
to promote responses from students. As an example, a student mentioned an activity in
which participants were asked to read and reply to a specific person (the person who had
posted the last response) and in this particular case, she believed that there was a higher
level of interaction.
At some point in the course and in order to clarify participation rules, a set of
guidelines was delivered to encourage participation and interaction. In the focus group,
students experienced this as a “warning”; a red alert that was counterproductive. Even
though the academic team did not deliver this set of guidelines in a timely manner, the
preparation of this material revealed that the team was aware of its importance in
encouraging more interaction, and as the course evolved the team felt the need to increase
79
participation rates and generate a collaborative dialog.
Students thought that forum responses were repetitive, and given that participants
did not take previous answers into account when they replied, reading forum postings
turned out to be a tedious experience. They also mentioned that forum replies were
always written by the same people.
By contrast, other people believed that the forum experience was very enriching
because different opinions were given, and students expressed their agreement or
disagreement with other people’s points of views. One student remarked: “when I
reviewed the forum posts thoroughly, I noticed that some of them were richer than
others… I was sorry for myself because I felt that I had underestimated the forum as a
communication tool”. The diversity of professional backgrounds enriched the ideas
being exchanged and the different responses resulted in more learning. A few participants
were teachers or psychologists who contributed with opinions from different
perspectives. One of them stated: “… since our backgrounds are different, all opinions
are valuable, acceptable and enriching … we are always learning new things.”
According to students, another factor affecting communication was the lack of
response. In this sense, a student stated, “When you participate, you expect a response,
and if you don’t get one, you get discouraged.” Additionally, communication skills also
affected participation. In this sense, a student expressed “I was ashamed of participating,
writing or being read by others in the forum”.
As a rule, students who were behind in the learning process posted late comments
in the forum. According to other participants, these late interventions did not make any
contributions to the community since they referred to old topics that had already been
80
covered. Some participants seemed to be surprised when they learned that some of the
forums had been closed and discovered that they were not able to give their opinions;
others, on the other hand, thought that timely closing of forums was positive to avoid off-
topic late forum posts.
The time that students devoted to complete the tasks was a critical restricting
factor. The following are some students’ opinions about time constraints: “I didn't have
time to read.”, “Time was a real issue.”, “I felt constantly pressed for time.”, “Fridays
flew away.” (as a rule, classes were published on Fridays). Sometimes, lack of time was
caused by technological problems and there were some claims regarding operational
difficulties that lengthened connection time.
The technological aspect was another factor impacting on participation; both
Internet connection and home computer availability were critical. People who did not
have home access to the web had to go to Internet cafes and were not able to be online as
frequently as others (just once a week and forum participation was limited to that
moment.). Several people who did not have any access to Internet decided to hire a
broadband service during the learning process.
The size of the content files, either text or images, uploaded to the course was a
conditioning factor and students appreciated the warnings made in advance in this sense
which allowed them to evaluate downloading alternatives (when the size of files was
significant). By the course midterm and in order to overcome the problems of large
downloads, a CD (containing bibliography, video, and images) was mailed to
participants.
The applications installed in the computer proved to have some limitations.
81
Students had some problems at the beginning of the course because they preferred to
print the web page content for later reading and they found out that printing quality was
not precise. When the course began, text formats were simplified and converted to Word
for which the number of consultations dropped and access to the information was
optimized.
Other Communication Tools
Apart from forum discussions, the postgraduate program relied on other
communication tools. The survey included questions about the students’ perceptions on
the validity of such tools.
The postgraduate program had a specific e-mail account to contact tutors, a tool
that 57% of students regarded as “very good” at the beginning in survey 1 and 70%
assigned a similar rating by the end. We can say that the perception of email
communication with tutors improved throughout the course. In addition, if we compare
students' evaluations of forum discussions and e-mail messaging as communication tools,
we can observe a marked preference for the latter. An average of both surveys revealed
that 64% of participants regarded e-mail as “very good” while only 37% gave a similar
rating to forum activities.
Students’ preference for mail interaction over forum activities may be attributed
to several reasons. On the one hand, during the focus experience students indicated that
they would rather use e-mail as a communication tool because tutors’ intervention
shortened response times. On the other hand, unlike forum discussions, e-mail allowed
82
for individual feedback, and sometimes, students would rather not share their questions
with others. As Haavind (2005) suggests, students prefer to receive feedback individually
when their personal work is involved. E-mail also permits a closer knowledge of each
student and more personalized approach. All in all, we should always take into account
that e-mail and forum are complementary communication tools and each of them pursues
a different objective.
Additionally, as part of the student orientation campaign, every week students
received a message by mail in order to announce the beginning of a new lesson and
remind them of exercises and deadlines of assignments. Ninety percent of students
considered this reminder useful, which may imply that they demand ongoing orientation
throughout the learning process.
Role of Academic Team
Students gave different opinions concerning the tutors' role in encouraging forum
participation. A participant stated: “the role of the tutor is critical to start a
conversation. In some forums the tutor used expressions such as ‘very good Silvina’
which encouraged us to review certain things.” Another student said: “sometimes the
tutor used some words, phrases or key words that facilitated interaction”.
One of the students perceived that “in those forums in which tutors did not
participate so often, they interacted more...” The same student said that in some
exercises tutors made it clear that they would not give their opinions until everyone had
posted their comments. In this case, there was a higher interaction among participants. On
83
the other hand, a student belonging to the VOY group disagreed and explained that
students posted their replies only after the tutor had given his/her opinion.
Students also mentioned the difficulties in understanding the thread of the forum
posts in which interventions followed a certain line of thought and later changed direction
due to the tutor’s corrections. Some students’ comments in this regard were: “I had to
read a lot in order to catch up with new things”, “When the tutor said ‘I agree with such
and such a person’ I had to reread everything in order to understand what we were
talking about”, “Personally, I loved it. I was somewhat overwhelmed, though; when I
was reading class 5, the group was already dealing with class 8...).
Students who were not so familiar with the content chose another student as a
reference, for example people who showed a high level of participation and were highly
regarded by tutors. In this sense, a student reported: "When the tutor praised Susana, I
took her as a reference". At the same time, others expressed that tutors could discourage
postings by exposing students’ mistakes and preventing others from reading their
comments. A student said: “When the tutor said ‘Ines, you made a mistake’, I
immediately decided not to take Ines into account anymore”.
The ratings corresponding to the category ‘Relationship with tutors’ showed the
largest increase between both surveys. The perception of dialog interaction levels and
interaction with tutors showed an increasing trend: In the first survey, 67% of
participants regarded it as “very good”, percentage that increased to 85% in the second
survey. In addition, the survey asked to rate how warm was the relationship with tutors
and how clear was the information they provided. Both items were highly evaluated and
their rating improved throughout the course. The warm attitude of tutors was considered
84
very good by 82% of students and clarity in the information given was rated very good by
74% of participants (average for both surveys).
Forum observation revealed that interventions of tutors and teachers in forum
discussions were very uneven. There was an average of 5 to 6 interventions per forum
that accounted for a total of 92 interventions in the 16 forum activities under review. The
purpose of these interventions was basically to provide public feedback that mostly
addressed the content of students' responses rather than the way in which students
participated or interacted with others. In order to give feedback, teachers referred back to
students’ interventions in the forum. They indicated whether the posted comments were
correct, and if they were not, they made the necessary corrections. They also made
several comments in an attempt to encourage students: "I appreciate your commitment
and participation...", "I'm very happy to 'see' what you think... Thanks for sharing your
thoughts so naturally, it makes us all feel good". There was a fewer number of other
instances in which teachers asked students to refer to or reread previous comments that
tutors had posted: “Try again”, “I’ve already answered this question. Reread my
previous comments on this subject and restate your response.”
There were not many opportunities in which students were encouraged by tutors
to build-on mates’ knowledge. On one occasion, a tutor specifically thanked those who
contributed with “daring” responses in order to enrich the discussion. On another
discussion topic, the tutor replied: “If you really want to, you can go farther…”,
“Congratulations to all the people who participate, especially those who keep on
reflecting on the new questions and elaborating on them”. Only on three occasions did
the tutor propose a new question; however, it was never addressed again during the
85
discussion. In one of the replies, the tutor took the risk of presenting a different proposal:
“I’ll let you on your own to discuss other people’s responses so that you can correct
yourselves. I’ll only participate if you move away from the objective of the exercise."
There were very few postings in which teachers included a final comment to wrap
up or close the forum. This closing comment was regarded as a good practice by students
in the focus group.
As students got adapted to the new methodology, so did tutors, who learned from
the experience and applied the knowledge gained. Tutors also experienced and confirmed
the fears they had recognized at the beginning of the course30. Gradually, tutors overcame
these difficulties and came up with ideas to optimize the time invested in forum
moderation, handling of received messages and tutoring tasks. As students had stated
before, tutors also believed that forum activities were overwhelming given the amount of
information published.
We should take into account that AEDIN’s course relies on an academic team
who assists students throughout their learning process, and even though the tutor is the
key figure, teachers with expertise in content and technical support staff also play an
important role. Tutoring tasks are distributed among different professionals, and such
segregation can cause difficulties in the support given to students.
Going back to the theory, Llorente (2006) categorized tutoring functions in 5
areas: academic, orientation, organization, technical, and socialization; functions that
30 Before the course started, tutors did a training exercise in order to identify their hopes and fears.
Technical difficulties and time devoted to reading and answering forum posts were detected as possible
constraints.
86
AEDIN assigns to different people. AEDIN’s tutors performed three of these functions:
orientation, organization, and socialization31. The teacher was responsible for academic
issues and the technological support team was in charge of technical aspects. Two of the
tutors also performed the teaching function in tandem for which their functions were of a
blended type. Initially, such distribution of roles resulted in some deficiencies that were
resolved as the program progressed. Such deficiencies may have impacted on students’
perceptions not only of the tutoring role but on the teacher and technical staff as well. In
the survey, teachers and technical support personnel32 received lower evaluation ratings
than tutors did in terms of assistance; however, such rating improved considerably as the
course progressed.
Several weeks after the program began, a meeting with the academic staff was set
up in order to optimize course administration rules such as correction responsibilities,
grade reports, posting of conclusions, and progress assessment messages. Apart from the
orientation that tutors had received through training activities and the information that
teachers received through meetings held, situated learning and experience demanded that
they reformulate several tasks and responsibilities, especially those of administrative
nature.
31 Although they are not precise, we may associate Llorente's functions: orientation, organization,
and socialization with the three survey aspects involved in the relationship with tutors: assistance, clarity in
the information given, and warm attitude.
32 Teachers' performance was rated as “very good” by 48% of students at the beginning of the
course and by 74% upon completion. Technical support was rated "very good" by 60% of students at the
beginning of the program and by 70% at the end.
87
Course Community
Regarding the students’ community, I considered several aspects related to
students’ interaction and interpersonal relationships.
Participants’ overall perception was that there was not much participation among
students in the forum. A student stated "I thought there was no interaction. Students
posted their opinions, but did not read others' posts. They took it easy and did not get
back to the forum to read new comments or reply to others". Some students thought that
the purpose of forum posts was to respond rather than to interact. There were few
questions and the typical exchange of ideas that normally takes place when professionals
discuss case studies was not present.
Students also considered that intervention levels were higher in those forums in
which feedback was given by students themselves and that these forums seemed to be
more participatory (this is a reference to some exercises in which participants had
different tasks; some students had to give answers and others had to provide feedback to
someone in particular).
Through forum observation I noticed that interaction among participants was
minimal. Nevertheless, I may conclude that they had read their mates’ opinions through
their own replies to other students’ posts. There was an average of 6 references to other
posts per forum. Most of them were generic, and students had posted them to show they
had read other people’s posts or to express agreement. Some examples were: "I've had
the chance to read the comments...", "I agree with X's comments on...", "It's good to read
88
what my partners think about…”, “I’ll try not to repeat the concepts”, or “I’ll take more
chances…”
There were few specific comments referring to what another student in particular
had previously expressed (for example indicating his/her name), i.e. making a reference
to the previous comments such as "I read Laura's comment on ...". In one of the forums
there were several comments in which one student's intervention was mentioned by
another: “I feel identified with Paula’s comments on…”, “Paula: I really like what you
said about…”, “I share Paula’s view”. There was another case evidencing that students’
interaction was basically aimed at clarifying words of the local jargon of their different
countries/regions of origin. In this case students indicated the name of the person to
whom the question or response was addressed.
To sum up, I noticed that although interaction was rather low, students read their
partners' comments and made references to other participants' posts only when they felt
the opinion was worth discussing. In the other cases, they just made generalizations
indicating agreement with other participants' views.
In order to add value to exchanges made by the community members, we can
draw from the principles of knowledge building so as to redefine exercises and thus
encourage contributive student interventions. Scardamalia (2002) states that contributive
discussions should contain real ideas, i.e., authentic problems that may interest
participants, idea diversity in order to better understand other people’s diverse opinions
and idea improvement, thoughts that can be improved by humbly accepting one’s
ignorance and giving and receiving criticism.
Regarding socialization, the interpersonal relationship among course participants
89
was hardly ever mentioned in the focus group. Only two students stated that the
relationship with tutors was a significant factor when rating course satisfaction, and only
one student regarded the close relationship with mates as an element worth considering.
However, going deeper into the subject, students felt that there was an emotional bonding
and that they received a lot of support in spite of the distance. In the focus group a
student said: “There is an affective, emotional bond with tutors and the organization. I
think that this is a hard thing to accomplish in distance education.”
It can be said that the sense of belonging to a group was present in the forum
since a large number of posts were introduced with social greetings: “Hello everybody”
or “Best regards to everyone”. When students were consulted whether the group had
become a learning community, 46% provided an affirmative response and 52% stated
that they did not know. The assumption in this regard, is that students may not have been
familiar with the concept or the implications of belonging to a learning community and
that the concept of community should be clarified in order to more accurately elaborate
on this idea. Although, students in AEDIN’s program showed a sense of belonging to the
group, I believe that the group did not reach collaborative learning. Forum observation
demonstrated that interventions among students were minimal and there was no evidence
of built-on peer postings: my observations revealed that students had just read other
mates' comments.
To illustrate community evolution, we may use Salmon's (2002) Five Stage
Model of Online Teaching and Learning that distance learners must undergo: a) Access
and motivation: developing skills to use CMC; b) Online socialization: establishing an
identity to interact with others and developing an online culture; c) Information
90
Exchange: exchanging resources and developing strategies to process such information;
d) Knowledge building: group discussions, collaboration, exposure to diverse views; and
e) Development: Achievement of learning goals, integration of learning tools and
development of autonomy.
Salmon, like other authors, established the need to make gradual progress in order
to build community. In this sense, AEDIN’s community would be halfway in the
evolution process. The group was able to use the CMC efficiently as well as establish
liaisons and a sense of belonging as shown by the comments in the focus group.
Nevertheless, there was no evidence of the strategies used to handle the information
being exchanged, and even though there were group discussions, collaboration was
minimal and no knowledge building evidence was observed.
Additionally, communities doing collaborative tasks, known as learning
communities, concentrate efforts on the creation of a final product which helps students
to set not only learning goals but also performance goals (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999).
Such common production goal unites the group and helps to create community awareness
(Bruner, 1996). In our case, there was no group production goal established as part of the
design, which did not help students to make community efforts and set goals other than
learning together. Interestingly, participants in the focus group proposed group oriented
tasks in order to promote interaction. We may infer that the inclusion of an activity of this
type could have accelerated community evolution.
The role of the tutor also influenced community building. Reviewing the
academic team's expectations and the action plan, I noticed that suggested actions were
individually oriented rather than collaborative: “establish a smooth and personalized
91
contact”, “students should be able to analyze a patient without our help", "encourage
students to improve production", "be able to relate to previous topics", etc. Only one of
the items in the action plan mentioned group interaction: “encourage interaction with
colleagues”, and there were no other references to collaboration or knowledge building.
This review clearly revealed that tutors’ original goals were accomplished and
they probably needed more time to assimilate and feel comfortable in their roles as
distance facilitators before endeavoring the creation of a learning community. This
implies that not only students felt the need to grow within the community but also tutors
needed to mature in their roles before being able to introduce innovations towards the
achievement of a collaborative learning environment. Probably, several course iterations
are necessary before tutors are in a position to create and manage a collaborative
community.
Opportunities of Improvement
During the focus group experience, students contributed with ideas to optimize
the distance postgraduate program and to improve interaction among participants.
In order to manage their time more efficiently, some students decided to keep a
personal agenda with assignment deadlines and responses to be posted in the forum.
Based on their experience, students proposed including guidelines in the program which
could help them create an agenda to better manage study time and assignment deadlines.
Besides, they pointed out the importance of being able to anticipate the estimated amount
of time they would have to dedicate to each class and to the entire program, so as to be
92
better prepared for the demands of the course. It is worth mentioning that the overall
schedule for the program had been described in the course syllabus; however, these
comments suggest that such information was not enough and that a detailed description
of each class becomes necessary.
Some students proposed having bimonthly classes instead of weekly meetings,
whereas others believed that assignment deadlines were critical and even recommended
in order to accomplish their tasks. This was clearly revealed by the following comments:
“I propose a class every fifteen days so that I can organize myself more efficiently
completing one class and getting ready for the new one.", "A week was enough for me to
read and do the assignments even if I fell behind.”, “I believe that if you don’t push, you
don’t do anything; you have to push.”, “All in all, haste was very useful.”, “Some classes
should be combined and more time should be devoted to them.”
In order to foster interaction, students proposed teamwork and chat rooms.
Concerning teamwork, they would have needed to interact in small groups on a specific
task to facilitate knowledge sharing. They also agreed that scheduling chat times was
difficult, hence they proposed two or three sessions along the course rather than weekly
chat rooms. Summing up, they demanded opportunities to get to know each other and to
come closer to other participants, a situation which was clearly achieved during the face-
to-face week experience when personal ties were strengthened. A student stated: “Now I
feel I have someone to turn to.”, “When I don’t know, I simply ask.”, “It feels different.”
Thus, the idea of including a face-to-face component at the beginning of the
course would be ideal to promote interaction. Another student said: “If we had had face-
to-face contact earlier, interaction would have been richer, we would have felt more “in
93
tune” and open to share our experiences.” Students living far from Buenos Aires would
not be able to attend additional face-to-face meetings for economic and work reasons.
However, they expressed that a videoconference via an Internet resource such as Skype33
would solve the problem.
The bibliography consulted provides examples of other ways in which one can
accomplish a more collaborative interaction. Examples of these proposals are: the
creation of concept maps in groups, the cooperative construction of cases, or the creation
of discussion groups in which one of the students may act as a moderator (Arango, 2003).
Students themselves may also be asked to summarize the forum interventions, taking
turns to do this task, and playing a central role in each opportunity.
Students stated that the fact of having met other participants in the face-to-face
classroom week led them to think about the need to strengthen their relationship by
keeping in touch to share questions about their patients and discussing how to apply the
treatments learned; i.e. create an ex-alumni forum. This suggestion is also supported by
theory: to maintain a community working beyond the course provides benefits to students
and the institution as well (Brown, 2001).
33 Skype is a free Internet software for phoning and messaging. It enables to communication
through the computer as if you were over the phone. More information in www.skype.com.
94
Chapter VII
Summary and Conclusions
Summary Discussion
The purpose of my research was to analyze students’ perceptions about their
course satisfaction and group interaction in forum activities included in a distance
learning program. I should point out that the research was done in a particular context;
the distance learning program on assistive technology was taught by a non-profit
organization and course participants were health professionals possessing a solid
academic background. Results of this study were framed within such context.
Conclusions drawn from the data gathered indicated that interaction among
participants was rather low in the context of this organization. During the focus group
experience, participants were able to provide spontaneous comments: their overall
perception was that forum participation levels were uneven, and that there was very little
interaction among students. The survey revealed that more than half of the students
(54%) rated the forum activity as simply "good" as a group interaction tool.
My forum observations showed a similar low participation trend. On average, a
little more than half of the students (53%) participated in forum activities. A closer look
confirmed that student interaction among participants was minimal. Even though an
average of 41 responses were posted in reply to each forum topic, only 1 or 2 made a
direct reference to comments made by another participant. However, some replies clearly
95
showed that students read other participants’ posts contributing to a higher level of
interaction.
Participants did not spontaneously regard participation and interaction as critical
factors to measure course satisfaction. Even though students felt that the level of
interaction was very low, the survey showed a high course satisfaction ratio (91%). I
found that students believe that the principal factor leading to course satisfaction is
content quality, including updated bibliography and clarity in presenting content lesson
materials. The second satisfaction factor students report is the possibility of putting into
practice lessons learned throughout the course. Finally, the third factor students take into
account when measuring satisfaction is tutors’ and teachers’ response time, and feedback
on submitted exercises.
Some of these factors were validated by survey results in which content quality
was the highest rated category (94% - “very good” in the final survey). Exercises, as a
practical application of knowledge learned, were highly rated as well (81% -“very
good”). Course design and organization, which determined how content material was
presented, how modules were organized, which exercises should be included and how
interaction should be dealt with, also got a high score (89% - “very good”), confirming
the opinions students gave during the focus experience.
Concerning the practical application of exercises, we should highlight the
decision to have a blended format for the course. On the one hand, the distance
component in which real-case videos were analyzed provided practice throughout the
entire process, and on the other hand, the residential on-site practice with patients at the
end of the course validated lessons learned. However, we should note that throughout the
96
course, teachers can only perform a follow-up to case resolution and opinions, not having
the option to evaluate the practical applications on real patients until the end of the
course. If teachers could actually see students’ hands-on performance during the process,
they would be able to correct possible deviations beforehand. Galvis (2006b), in a case
study, proposes that students generate a portfolio containing videotapes of their own real
case application. Sharing this material with the group would allow them to exchange
opinions and help each other perfect their professional practice. This qualitative
enhancement in exercises demanding a practical application of lessons learned is a
research issue that deserves further investigation in future implementations since students
need to learn how to use more advanced technological tools.
Although interaction with peers was not regarded as a priority, students admitted
that personal ties were created in this learning experience. They also emphasized the idea
that more interaction was desirable because the diversity of points of view enriched the
course. For this purpose, one of their suggestions was to include activities that may help
students to get to know each other better and improve communication among
participants. In their opinion, alternative activities such as group projects, scheduled chat
sessions, and face-to-face meetings (in person or via videoconference) would facilitate
the exchange of ideas. Some of these suggestions are costly options since they demand
investments in high technology (videoconference) or represent high commuting costs
(face-to-face meetings). However, options such as group projects or chat sessions can be
implemented in future courses to test the increase in interaction levels.
In spite of the activities originally created to encourage community building, such
as a two-week period devoted to personal introductions in the forum, students requested
97
face-to-face meetings. Such a request made me reflect upon other virtual alternatives
oriented to community building that could be included at the beginning of the learning
process in future implementations in order to reinforce bonds among students. We may
consider the creation of differentiated virtual spaces (as suggested by the principles of the
Concord Consortium, Arango (2003) and Woods (2003)) such as forums focusing on
social exchange, content and technical support. All the classes at AEDIN contained a
forum for general questions and one or more content discussion forums. However, there
was no forum oriented towards social exchange.
As students had already reported, I also found that participation patterns in the
forum were uneven. Such variable patterns in participation levels were mostly related to
the set of directions given to complete tasks, as well as to the number/type of exercises in
each lesson. According to the forum observations, specific directions demanding more
from students (for example solving a case and posting the analysis) encouraged more
forum participation than activities requiring a simple exchange of opinions. Additionally,
the high number of exercises, especially those to be submitted, forced students to
lengthen the time invested in these tasks, and as a result the levels of participation in
forum activities decreased. Students felt that lack of time was also a limiting factor
leading to lower participation.
The case analysis allowed me to gain insight on factors that encouraged or
hindered student participation. Among others, I mention the following recommendations
to promote participation in future distance courses:
• Participation rules and guidelines: Participants, especially beginners in the
experience of distance learning education, should know the rules and expected
98
behavior in terms of participation. Disregarding such rules could raise doubts
on participation goals, and as a result some participants may not read other
people's comments. The fact of not reading other people’s posts generates
unnecessary repetitions which make reading and follow-up of the forum
difficult. Besides, awareness of rules and guidelines may encourage hesitant
students who are sometimes behind in posting their comments to catch up
with the rest. As a rule, these students would rather wait until other more
experienced students post their own opinions first.
• Exercise topics and directions: Directions guiding the resolution of exercises
should be specifically and clearly stated. The more specific and demanding
the directions, the more participation is achieved. Terms such as “resolve”,
“analyze” and “case” are recommended in order to encourage forum
participation. In addition, the topics of the exercises assigned, consistent with
Scardamalia’s principles, should be based on real problems, raise interest
among students, and generate a diversity of ideas open to further elaboration
and improvement.
• Technological requirements: Basic computer skill and software requirements
to take the course such as connection speed, previous knowledge, and required
software should be clearly specified in advance, and only those students
meeting such requirements should be eligible. These requirements will
prevent a digital breach that may favor some students and put others at a
disadvantage. Having similar technological conditions, students will have
equal participation privileges in terms of frequency and time. However, if a
99
democratic environment among participants is a desired objective, other
alternatives allowing equal access conditions to those having technological
limitations should be developed.
• Time constraints: Time is a limiting factor as far as participation is concerned.
To serve the purpose of achieving more participation, it is advisable to include
fewer exercises in each lesson, but these should be more focused on practical
applications of lessons learned and retain high quality standards. Rules for
forum posts (already mentioned) result in better organized forum activities
reducing reading times. In order to more efficiently manage their dedication
time in the distance learning course, students reported that they would rather
know class and program schedules in advance, and they recommend keeping
an agenda with deadlines. The institution might as well be involved in this
task to support students in this sense.
• Tutors’ role: The role of tutors, which was highly rated in the course, is not
clearly identified as a factor encouraging participation. While some students
believe that tutors are essential to improve interaction, others think that more
interaction is achieved when tutors do not take part. However, a conclusive
point among students is that lack of response from tutors does affect
communication. Consequently, we may assume that a prompt response from
tutors may become an essential factor to promote communication.
When selecting the communication medium it is important to remember that the
combination of different types of media is the most recommended strategy. As we could
see in the case studied, students prefer email to get individual feedback and personal
100
contact. According to students, forum activities are ideal for interaction with mates and
some Chat sessions are better to achieve a closer bond with peers.
Even though the course design included students’ needs in terms of orientation,
navigation guides, and participation rules, the absence of evaluation criteria
communicated to students became evident. Regarding forum participation, students were
not aware of the impact that their interventions could have in their grading, they did not
know whether posting forum responses on time were more important than posting new
inquiries or elaborating correct responses. The development of rubrics describing
evaluation criteria of forum participation would have allowed students to better
understand what was expected from them and what direction they should take. Besides,
tutors would have been able to rely on these concrete criteria in order to provide further
guidance and orientation in their feedback. Tutors followed the action plan guidelines but
did not use them as assessment criteria to evaluate forum discussions. Students, on the
other hand, were given a set of guidelines34 informing them about what was expected
from their participation in the forum discussions; however, as I have already said, this
information was untimely delivered to them.
Personally, even though I was aware of its importance, I did not consider
developing program rubrics for this project on the assumption that there was not a need to
do so because the institution was not using rubrics in the residential course and it was not
customary to rely on rubrics for courses developed in environments other than academic
ones (we should take into account that the organization implementing the program is a
34 These student guidelines directed students to read other people’s opinions and give answers
adding innovative ideas or asking new questions.
101
non-profit in which teachers are therapists belonging to several disciplines). Concerning
assessment of forum participation, there are some discrepancies among different authors.
Some of them believe that students should be free to decide whether to participate or not
(Shin, 2002) and that dialog should not have a predominant role (Gorsky et. al, 2004),
while others recommend defining evaluation criteria to assess forum participation.
Haavind (2005) assigns grades to discussion postings, specifically stating what is
expected from students: 10 points for initial comments, 10 points for adding new
information (for example sharing a website), other 10 points for replying to more than 2
participants. Webb et. al (2004) propose 3 levels of evaluation: PASS for valid
contributions (starting a discussion, replying to a relevant comment), MERIT for
references to an external source as long as PASS criteria are met, and DISTINCTION for
relevant comment added to that new source. Another example described by Galvis
(2006a) proposes taking into account five conditions to assess the contributions in an
online discussion: a title summarizing the content of the message, comments linked to
other participants’ contributions, thought-provoking ideas encouraging further discussion,
correct narrative, and contributions that enrich other people's comments.
A study conducted by Gilbert & Dabbagh (2005) shows how the use of online
discussion protocols evolved throughout four iterations of the same course in which
students were initially instructed to participate only once a week. The subsequent course
iterations incorporated participation guidelines and tips, and the last iteration finally
included detailed rubrics for each discussion. The inclusion of rubrics turned out to have
a positive influence since higher participation and meaningful discourse was achieved. As
in Gilbert and Dabbagh’s study, in the first distance version of AEDIN’s postgraduate
102
course we only used limited participation guidelines. In future implementations we could
include rubrics with detailed evaluation aspects on the basis of criteria used in the courses
described above. These rubrics should be accessible to students and academic teams, and
teachers should also have access to training to be able to provide guidance and assess
forum discussions.
Even though course design was oriented to accomplish a high level of dialogue
and knowledge building through student forum exchange, this experience led me to
understand that in addition to the factors students identify as promoting and discouraging
of dialog, there are other aspects that should support design. It would be naive to think
that by merely asking students to exchange opinions in the exercises knowledge building
would take place. A community of students needs to evolve gradually through successive
stages to achieve knowledge building.
Moreover, goals and philosophy of the academic team may limit the design scope,
and tutors’ expertise in their role will also be required to jumpstart collaborative learning.
Therefore, the academic team will have to go through a learning curve that will probably
require more than one iteration of the course in order to support a learning community.
All these reflections make me rethink the Start-up model used to design the
distance education strategy for the course, and they clearly show the need to reinforce the
concept of community in this Start-up model. I believe that the e-learning culture stage
should be more focused on the production of community building activities. We should
consider that community building is a gradual process and as such requires a scaffolding
structure until participants become more independent. Such scaffolding should take the
already mentioned concepts into consideration: differentiated forum spaces, tutors’
103
guides, activities fostering social exchange, activities in which students themselves may
take the role of moderators, or group activities, among others. Furthermore, the teachers’
learning curve should be respected to allow them to grow in the process and be able to
manage a collaborative community.
Conclusions
Students taking AEDIN’s course on Assistive Technology are professionals who
work and study at the same time, thus they suffer time constraints. For these students
group interaction is a desired goal, but not a requirement to measure satisfaction with the
learning process; consequently, this concept should be taken into consideration during the
course design stages. If the goal were to get high satisfaction standards among
participants, the institution would have to focus on content, practical application and
response time rather than on interaction.
In courses where fluent collaborative dialog among participants was pursued,
other factors should be taken into account to create a learning community: first, concrete
factors identified by students such as participation rules, clear task description, and
directions, as well as clearly specified technological requirements; and second, factors
that support community building considering that both students and teachers need to
gradually evolve in the generation of community. Course design needs to support the
stages that students need to overcome to accomplish collaborative learning. The design
should also consider the level of academic growth that teachers may experience and
support them in their own maturity learning curve so that they can successfully play their
roles of expert online facilitators.
104
The analysis of this case allowed for the identification of factors that can better
generate a distance learning community, and also promote exchange among students. The
inclusion of opportunities detected during the study in future iterations of AEDIN´s
postgraduate distance course and further analysis could lead to new knowledge of
students’ community in this environment. I cannot a priori apply the results obtained to
other courses and contexts; however, the question remains open for future investigators
who may want to extend the analysis and further examine student interaction and course
satisfaction in other fields.
Final thoughts
I started writing my thesis analyzing AEDIN’s case, a successful project in my
professional career, with the idea that when evaluating a distance course students
emphasized course content and other factors, rather than interaction with mates. In fact, I
was able to confirm this idea through the comments students made during the focus
group. The data gathered through the surveys was valuable, and the conversations held
during the focus group experience were enriching. The analysis of the case provided me
with more knowledge than expected, and allowed me to detect areas of improvement in
terms of participation and overall quality of the postgraduate program.
I found that reviewing the bibliographical sources after having obtained the
results was a very productive experience. It allowed me to go over the literature on the
subject from a different perspective and encouraged me to search for further information
to broaden my knowledge and support the study results. I especially tried to go further
105
into the concept of building community, which did not evidence good results in this case
study, in an attempt to find solutions to future experiences.
In order to develop the project, I used the Start-up model which I have been using
for several years in different organizations, and I have come to the conclusion that it can
always be perfected. In this case in particular, it was interesting to discover that the
model had some weaknesses in the community setup stage, hence I realized that more
activities oriented towards community building had to be developed. The insight I gained
from this experience helped me think of improvements for AEDIN’s future program
implementations and to perfect the Start-up model I intend to use in other organizations
that are exploring distance education practices for the first time.
For my final comments I would like to say that this thesis work, which involved a
complex process demanding a lot of effort and energy, turned out to be very productive in
the acquisition of new knowledge for my professional career. I feel that my reflections,
the insights gained, and the literature review helped me become a more specialized
consultant in the field of distance education.
106
Appendix 1 Step by Step Guide
This is an example of a page of the Step by Step Guide. Guía PASO a PASO para ingresar a la plataforma del curso
¡Bienvenido a nuestro Posgrado de Tecnología Asisitiva a distancia! Si recibiste esta guía ya sos parte de nuestra comunidad de alumnos del posgrado. El propósito de esta guía es indicar PASO a PASO el proceso de ingreso al entorno virtual donde están los materiales del posgrado.
1 - Web
El Posgrado de Tecnología Asisitiva está ubicado en la siguiente dirección de Inernet:
• aedin.aulainstitucional.com.ar
2 – Portal de entrada
Tipeando esta dirección podrás ingresar al portal de entrada de la plataforma, que se ve como la siguiente imagen. Observá las 2 partes de la pantalla que están explicadas en la imagen.
3 – Registrarse
Para ingresar, hacelo a través del recuadro central y te pedirá usuario y clave porque esté es un curso con acceso restringido a alumnos. La pantalla de registro es la siguiente:
107
Appendix 2 Focus Group Questionnaire Guide
1. Which factors did you take into account in order to evaluate the course?
2. The discussion forum is the place where you interact with peers and exchange
ideas; it's where the actual dialog takes place. How do you perceive dialog among
group participants? How do you perceive this group interaction?
Do you believe interaction is stable or variable? If you think interaction is
variable, do you feel it increases or diminishes as the course advances?
3. Which factors encourage participation in the forum? Which ones discourage
participation in the forum?
4. In the forum, members may engage in one/several tasks: complete the exercises,
read peers’ comments or answer peers’ comments and interact. We are going to
focus on interaction with others: Which aspects of interaction with peers may be
improved and how?
5. Finally, which aspects of the course could be improved? Mention strengths and
weaknesses (opportunities of improvement).
108
Appendix 3 Surveys’ Results
The following table shows complete results of both surveys.
Is the first time you study at a distance? Yes No
Survey 1 86% 14%
DESIGN How do you evaluate the design and organization of the course? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 74% 24% 2% 0% Survey 2 89% 9% 2% 0%
How do you consider content quality? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 81% 19% 0% 0% Survey 2 94% 6% 0% 0%
How do you consider the quantity of contents? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 2 85% 15% 0% 0%
Do you think that exercises and assignments were useful to reinforce learning? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 83% 17% 0% 0% Survey 2 81% 19% 0% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 82% 18%
How do you consider due date of exercises and assignments? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 2 34% 57% 9% 0%
109
Do you think exercises were useful for application in your professional work? Yes No
Not know but probably in the future
Survey 1 86% 0% 14% Survey 2 100% 0% 0%
ACCESS How do you evaluate platform navigation and access? Very simple Simple Complex
Very Complex
Survey 1 31.0% 59.5% 9.5% 0% Survey 2 40.4% 55.3% 4.3% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 36% 57%
How frequently did you access to the course? One a week
Twice a week
3 times per week
4 times per week
5 times per week Every day
Survey 1 7% 33% 33% 10% 10% 7% Survey 2 19% 32% 28% 13% 2% 6% Average Survey 1 & 2 13% 32% 30% 11% 6% 7%
What was you location when you accessed? Home Work Cyber
Survey 1 83% 7% 10%
What kind of Internet connection do you have?
Broadband connection
Slow connection
Survey 2 54% 46%
How would you classify you technological skills? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 2 21% 49% 30% 0%
110
What was your preference?
Read through the
screen Print Both Survey 1 2% 81% 17%
COMMUNICATION How do you evaluate the forum as a medium of exchange? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 36% 55% 10% 0% Survey 2 38% 53% 9% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 37% 54% 9% 0%
How often did you participate in the forum? Very often
From time to time
Only when required Not often
Survey 2 6% 53% 21% 19%
How often did your mates participate in the forum? Very often
From time to time Not often
Survey 2 41% 52% 7%
How do you evaluate the email account to contact tutors? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 57% 26% 14% 0% Survey 2 70% 28% 0% 2% Average Survey 1 & 2 64% 27%
Do you think messages sent before each class were useful? Yes No
Survey 1 90% 10% Survey 2 89% 11%
TEAM How would you evaluate dialogue and interaction with tutors? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 67% 29% 5% 0% Survey 2 85% 13% 2% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 76% 21%
111
How would you evaluate warmth in the relationship with tutors? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 71% 24% 5% 0% Survey 2 94% 6% 0% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 82% 15%
How would you evaluate clarity in the information provided by tutors? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 67% 29% 5% 0% Survey 2 81% 19% 0% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 74% 24%
What was the average response time of tutors? daily 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more
Survey 1 12% 64% 10% 14% Survey 2 28% 55% 15% 2% Average Survey 1 & 2 20% 60% 12% 8%
How would you evaluate teacher role? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 48% 43% 7% 0% Survey 2 74% 26% 0% 0%
How would you evaluate technological support staff? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 60% 33% 7% 0% Survey 2 77% 23% 0% 0%
Do you think the group became a learning community? Yes No I don't know
Survey 2 46% 2% 52%
GENERAL How would you evaluate the postgraduate course? Very good Good Fair Bad
Survey 1 76% 24% 0% 0% Survey 2 87% 13% 0% 0%
112
Are you satisfied with the postgraduate course?
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Slightly satisfied Unsatisfied
Survey 2 91% 9% 0% 0%
113
Appendix 4 Forum Observation Rates
The following table shows complete forum observation data.
Class Forum Responses People Students % students
participation Participation
per class Tutors/
Teachers
Tutors or Teachers
interventions
Students that response more than
once References to others
Generic references
Specific references
1 1 61 48 47 78,33% 60,83% 1 4 7 3 1 2 2 32 27 26 43,33% 1 4 3 18 12 6 2 3 39 35 34 56,67% 56,67% 1 2 2 18 13 5 3 4 30 29 29 48,33% 48,33% 0 0 1 10 9 1 4 5 18 12 11 18,33% 42,78% 1 6 1 4 1 3 6 59 42 41 68,33% 1 9 5 3 1 2 7 37 26 25 41,67% 1 8 4 2 1 1 5 8 39 31 30 50,00% 57,22% 1 3 3 1 1 0 9 68 41 40 66,67% 1 24 2 4 4 0 10 38 34 33 55,00% 1 4 1 7 5 2 6 11 39 32 31 51,67% 51,67% 2 9 0 5 5 0 7 12 59 47 45 75,00% 61,11% 2 7 5 1 1 0 13 35 33 31 51,67% 1 2 1 5 3 2 14 36 35 34 56,67% 1 2 0 4 4 0 8 15 29 29 29 48,33% 44,17% 0 0 0 5 2 3 16 37 27 24 40,00% 3 8 3 9 9 0
Average 41,00 33,00 31,88 53,13% 1,13 5,75 2,38 6,19 4,50 1,69
114
Bibliography
Arango, M. L. (2003). Foros virtuales como estrategia de aprendizaje. Revista Debates
Latinoamericanos, 2 (1).
Baath, J. (1980). Postal Two-Way Communication in Correspondence Education.
Gleerup, Glund. In D. Keegan (1986). Foundations of distance education. London:
Routledge Farmer.
Bielaczyc, K. & Collins, A. (1999). Learning Communities in Classrooms: A
Reconceptualization of Educational Practice. Instructional-Design Theories and
Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2.
Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2).
Chang, S. L. (2001). What types of online facilitation do students need? 2001 Annual
Proceedings of Association for Educational Communications and Technology in
Atlanta, Georgia, 2, 494-502.
Chen, Y. (2001). Dimensions of transactional distance in the world wide web learning
environment: a factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (4),
459-470.
Chute, A., Thompson, M. & Hancock, B. (1999). The McGraw-Hill Handbook of
Distance Learning. New York: McGraw Hill Companies Inc.
115
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S. & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning.
Effective strategies for moderators”. Madison: Atwood Publishing.
Craig, T. & Laserna, C. (2002). Distance Education Course and Program Evaluation for
Academic Year 2000-01. Draft report prepared for Harvard Extension School.
Davies A., Ramsay, J., Lindfield H. & Couperthwaite J. (2005). Building learning
communities: foundations for good practice. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 36 (4), 615–628.
Galvis, A. (2006a). Aportes a discusiones en la red que cumplen con los criterios Tigrres.
Retrived October 20, 2007, from http://aportetigre.blogspot.com/
Galvis, A. (2006b). Lights, Camera, Action: Videotaping Teachers for Professional
Development. Retrived October 20, 2007, from
http://www.concord.org/publications/newsletter/2006-spring/video.html
Garcia Aretio, L. (2001). La educación a distancia: de la teoría a la páctica. Barcelona:
Ariel Educación.
Gilbert P. K. & Dabbagh N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful
discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (1), 5-18.
Gorsky, P. & Caspi, A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Transactional Distance Theory.
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6 (1), 1-11.
Haavind, S. (2005). Tapping Online Dialogue for Learning: A grounded Theory
Approach to Identifying Key Heuristics that Promote Collaborative Dialogue
among Virtual Learners. Reprinted from the E-Learn 2005 Conference
Proceedings, with permission of AACE (http://www.aace.org).
116
Haavind, S., Rose, R., Galvis, A. & Tinker, R. (2002). Online courses that work…and
some that don’t. The Concord Consortium, 6 (1).
Hillman, D.C., Willis, D. J. & Gundawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interfase interaction in
distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for
practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education. 8 (2), 30-42. In M. S.
McIsaac, J.M Blocher, V. Mahes & Ch. Vrasidas. Student and Teacher Perceptions
of Interaction in Online Computer-Mediated Communication. Educational Media
International, 36 (2), 121-31.
Holmberg, B. (1981) Status and Trends of Distance Education. London: Croom Helm. In
M. Moore & G. Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a systems view. Belmont:
Wadsworth.
Horton, S. (2000). Web teaching guide. London: Yale University Press.
Huang, H. (2002). Student perceptions in an online mediated envirnoment. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 29 (4).
Katz, R. & Associates. (1999). Dancing with the Devil - Information Technology and the
New Competition in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Katz, Y. J. (2002) Attitudes affecting colege students’ preferences for distance learning.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18 (2-9).
Ke, F. (2004). Forming Virtual Learning Community within Online Course: Students’
Perspectives. Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Keegan, D. (1986). Foundations of distance education. London: Routledge Farmer.
117
Koschmann, T. D. (1993-1994). Introduction: Toward a Theory of Computer Support for
Collaborative Learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3) 219-225.
LaPointe, D.K. & Gunawardena, Ch. N. (2004). Developing, Testing and Refining of a
Model to Understand the Relationship Between Peer Interaction and Learning
Outcomes in Computer-Mediates Conferencing. Distance Education, 25 (1).
Litwin, E. (1995). Tecnología Educativa. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidós.
Llorente Cejudo, M. C. (2006). El tutor en e-learning: asepctos a tener en cuenta. Edutec.
Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa. 20. (Enero 06).
Lobry de Bruyn, L. (2004). Monitoring Online Communication: Can the development of
convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment?
Distance Education, 25 (1).
Lugo, M. T. & Schulman, D. (1999). Capacitación a distancia: acercar la lejanía.
Buenos Aires: Ed. Magisterio Río de la Plata.
Marques de Oliveira, S. (2001). Evaluation of a Distance Education Program Offered by
the Graduate School of Systems Analysis of the Pontificia Universidades Católica
de Campinas. Colabora Curtiba, 1 (1), 4-11.
Marturet, M. M. (1999). Educación a distancia. Buenos Aires: Ed. Marymar.
Maxwell, J.A. (1994). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. California:
Sage Publications.
McIsaac M.S., Blocher, J.M., Mahes, V. & Vrasidas, Ch. (1999). Student and Teacher
Perceptions of Interaction in Online Computer-Mediated Communication.
Educational Media International, 36 (2), 121-31.
118
Mena, M. (1987). Nuevas estrategias y nuevas tecnologías de comunicación en
Educación a Distancia. Asociación Argentina de Educación a Distancia. UNESCO-
OEA.
Moore, M. (1989). Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3 (2), 1-6.
Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a systems view. Belmont:
Wadsworth.
Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: a systems view (2nd ed.).
Belmont: Wadsworth.
Norman, D. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart . MA: Addison-Wesley Reading.
Northrup, P. (2002). Online Learners’ preferences for Interaction. The Quarterly Review
of Distance Education, 3 (2). 219-226.
Padula Perkins, J. E. (2007). Contigo a la distancia. El rol del tutor en la educación no
presencial. Universidad del Salvador.
Paloff, R. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in Cyberspace. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco. In D.R. Garrison and T. Anderson (2003). E-learning in the 21st
Century. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Pavey J. & Garland S. W. (2004). The integration and implementation of a range of ‘e-
tivities’ to enhance students’ interaction and learning. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 4 (3).
Poole, D.M. (2002). Student Participation in a Discussion-Oriented Online Course: A
Case Study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33 (2).
119
Richardson, B. & Cooper, N. (2003). Developing a virtual interdisciplinary research
community in higher education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 17 (2).
Santilli, S. & Beck, V. (2005). Graduate Faculty Perceptions of Online Learning. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3 (2), 155-160.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of
knowledge. In Liberal education in a knowledge society, ed. B. Smith. Chicago:
Open Court. (Access online: http://ikit.org/fulltext/2002CollectiveCog.pdf)
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building. Journal of Distance Education, 17 (Suppl.
3, Learning Technology Innovation in Canada), 10-14.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. Encyclopedia of education
(2nd ed). 1370-1373.
Schreiber, D. & Berge, Z. (1998). Distance training. Jossey – Bass Publishers.
Segura, E. & Vaccario, C. (2004a). ¿Cómo poner en marcha una estrategia de e-learning?
Virtual Educa Barcelona.
Segura, E. & Vaccario, C. (2004b). De la presencialidad a la semipresencialidad: análisis
de la transformación de un curso de nivel universitario. Latineduca 2004.
Shin, N. (2002). Beyond Interaction: the relational construct of Transactional Presence.
Open Learning, 17 (2).
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Allyn and
Bacon, Boston. In L. Garcia Aretio. (2001). La educación a distancia: de la teoría a
la páctica. Barcelona: Ariel Educación.
120
Soomyung, K. & Berge, Z.(2002). Overcoming barriers to distance training and
education. Education at a Distance – the USDLA Journa. 16 (1). Retrieved
February 8, 2002, from
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN02_Issue/article01.html.
Stanton, S. (2001). Going distance: Developing shared web-based learning programmes.
Occupational Therapy International, 8(2), 96–106.
Uñantes, G; Reynoso, E. & Brescia, M. (2004). E-learning: cambiando paradigmas en
capacitación. Retrieved May 22, 2004, from
http://www.elprincipe.com/teleformacion/notas/index14.shtml
Webb, E., Jones, A., Barker, P. & van Schaik, P. (2004). Using e-learning dialogues in
higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41 (1).
Wegerif, R. (1998). The Social Dimension of Asynchonous Learning Networks. Journal
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2 (1).
White, C. (2000). Learn Online. T H E Journal, 27 (9).
Woods, R. (2003). Becoming a “Communal Architect” in the Online Classroom-
Integrating Cognitive and Affective Learning for Maximum Effect in Web-Based
Learning. Online Journal of Distance Administration, 3 (1).