Developing, Sustaining and Researching E-Learning Groups and Communities

Developing, sustaining and researching e-learning groups and communities

Symposium presented at SCUTREA, 32nd Annual Conference, 2-4 July 2002, University of Stirling

David McConnell and Victor Lally, University of Sheffield

A key feature of the Internet and the Web is the facility to support learners in collaborative group work. Virtual learning environments (VLE's) such as Web-CT and Blackboard can be used to group students together so that they can work collaboratively around shared learning events. The effectiveness of collaborative learning is well documented in the literature.

At the University of Sheffield, we run a global, completely virtual CPD Masters in e-learning which is designed to function as a community of learners. Two types of e-learning are supported:

1.Collaborative e-learning: course participants work in small e-groups to define a problem relating to their interests which is amenable to collaborative group work. The purpose of this is to help participants:  experientially understand and critically evaluate the nature and complexity of collaborative group work in virtual learning environments. This understanding contributes to the development of their own professional practice in e- learning  work collaboratively on a shared problem which will lead to a portfolio outcome which can be shared with other learning sets  critically reflect on the experience using a set of self analysis tools. The outcome of this critical reflection is then made available to the learning set members who also offer their 'assessment' of each participants' self analysis.

2.Cooperative e-learning: individuals within a group define an agenda for carrying out a course assignment chosen by themselves in consultation with their peer learners and tutor. This assignment is designed around a real problem or issue that they face in their professional practice (or which their organisation faces). This form of e-learning is based on principles of self managed learning, as well as principles of cooperative learning.

The symposium presentations will address some of the issues in implementing and researching the experience of collaborative e-learning with reference to this Masters course as one example of an e- learning course design.

E-learning in adult continuing education: designing and implementing a global e- learning Masters course: David McConnell and Victor Lally

Introduction

The advent of electronic communications, the Web and the Internet and associated technologies have produced a climate in which e-learning is seen as a means towards improving access for adult learners to higher education. There is no accepted uniform methodology to explain how a move to e-learning could benefit institutions in both the short

1 and long term (Bacsich, et al, 1999). And even though the business models for e-learning are not yet proven (Ryan, 2000), many higher education institutions are making plans to globalise their courses (Middlehurst, 2000).

A missing element in much of this is a concern with the design of e-learning courses and a thorough understanding of the possible pedagogic approaches which are needed in order to implement and sustain them in ways that lead to quality learning and teaching processes and outcomes. In this paper we wish to discuss such issues with reference to a long standing and academically proven e-learning continuing professional development Masters course which we run at the University of Sheffield. In doing this we will present our educational philosophy, and the design principles, which have been developed over the past 10 years or so.

The MEd in E-Learning

Background

The University of Sheffield MEd in Networked Collaborative E-Learning is a two year part-time continuing professional education course. It has the purpose of helping students understand the complexity of learning and teaching via the Internet. As well as gaining knowledge from studying the literature on networked/e-learning, a great deal of the students’ knowledge is gained from experiential collaborative and cooperative group learning in the networked learning environment itself.

We have been running the course since 1966. Since then, it is been re-designed several times in order to take account of our research into e-learning (Lally, 2001; Lally & de Laat, 2002; McConnell, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). When we first ran the course, we had face-to-face meetings in Sheffield prior to each workshop, followed by extensive periods online. In making the course more widely available to participants across the globe we reduced these meetings to a one week long residential at the beginning of the course, and another at the beginning of year two. However, it seemed unlikely that we would attract a full compliment of overseas participants if they were obliged to travel to Sheffield for meetings. Rather hesitantly, and realising the potential risk we were taking, we re-designed the course to make it completely virtual, allowing anyone anywhere in the world to take it from their home country without having to travel to Sheffield. This version of the course was launched in October 2000 and we are currently in the second intake of this new design. The course has attracted participants from Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, mainland Europe, South Africa, Britain and the republic of Ireland. Current participants include:  professional trainers and developers, self employed or in public and private sector organisations  teachers and lecturers in Further, Higher and Open Education  adult continuing educators  people working in libraries and resource centres  open and distance learning educators and developers

Course design

Our learning and teaching philosophy draws on a variety of perspectives (McConnell, 2000). At the centre of these is a concern to work with participants as members of a community. The term learning community has been used to describe a cohesive group, one that embodies a culture of learning, and in which there is a collective effort towards understanding (Bielaczyc

2 & Collins, 1999). There have been many attempts to characterise learning communities in the educational literature (see, for example, Brown & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Hodgson, et al, 2002). A key feature of the idea is that responsibility for learning is ‘shared’ among community members. No one individual is responsible for knowing everything; rather, the shared knowledge and skills are distributed among members. Individually, each contributes to the group endeavour, enabling the group to accomplish more than the individual members might separately, with the key gain of deepened understanding of both content and processes by individual members of the group.

The course is run both as a learning community in which participants have an interest in sharing, supporting and learning collaboratively in a social context; and as a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), in which members are actively constructing understandings of what it means to be professional ‘e-learning’ practitioners. In this design, we encourage participants and tutors to engage in meaningful practices through cooperative and collaborative learning processes, and to ensure that knowledge developed is demonstrated in the context of the participants’ professional practice. We develop a climate where commenting on each other’s work, and giving and receiving feedback is an integrated and normal part of the community’s day to day work. There is a high degree of experiential learning (e.g. learning about working in distributed problem-based learning groups by taking part in such groups), and participants are encouraged to be reflective and to use this as a major source of learning (Boud & Walker, 1998). We develop a climate where commenting on each other’s work, and giving and receiving feedback is an integrated and normal part of the community’s day to day work.

We aim to help course participants appreciate and understand the ways in which they can use the Internet and the Web in their professional practice, and how they can design and evaluate learning events which focus on group work and are based on sound principles of active, problem-based learning. We emphasise the implementation of innovative online practice by creating a supportive and creative research learning community where participants feel free to experiment and ‘learn by doing’, while constantly holding a critical perspective on their practice and the theory underpinning it. The course emphasises the educational need for learners to work in social learning environments which emphasise both the situated nature of learning and the importance of co-production and co-participation.

This is linked to the capability of the Internet and the Web to support group work and provide a virtual environment for learners to work together, share resources and collaborate. Within this virtual research learning community perspective, participants have opportunities to:  have a wide choice over the content and direction of their learning  manage their own learning, and cooperate with others through processes of negotiation and discussion  take a critical perspective on learning and academic issues with strong relationships to their professional practice  focus on their own learning and development from a critical, reflective perspective, combined with an understanding of relevant academic ideas and concepts. A means for doing this is exposure to other participants’ development within the learning community. They participate in developing the research learning community perspective, which is based on participants and tutors taking collective responsibility for the design and evaluation of the programme, via constant review and modification of the design, procedures and ways of working.

Problem-based learning is carried out through an action research mode of learning, and is based on a philosophy that acknowledges that people learn in different ways. The action learning/research focus allows participants to make choices about the management, focus and direction of their learning. Participants work in small groups where they are encouraged to

3 view their research and learning as ‘action research’ (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). They are introduced to the concept of action research early on in the programme in an e-seminar. This provides them with a model of how to work together, which helps guide them in their work. The issues or problems researched are defined within each group through processes of negotiation. They are usually complex problems which are sometimes difficult to define, but which are fertile ground for the production of mutual understandings and the construction of ‘shared resolutions’ (Schon, 1983).

The place of the tutor

The place of the tutor in this learning community is complex. The tutor exists between the boundary of the institution, which s/he represents, and that of the learning community. In the learning community the tutor adopts the ‘role’ of tutor-participant. This implies at least two things. The first is a sharing of power with the course participants in which the tutor has to work at ensuring power is transferred to participants in the community, who, in turn, have to come to trust the tutor in that process. Power is shared along a series of dimensions such as decision-making about the focus of the design of learning events, and assessment, which is collaborative, involving the learners themselves, their peers and the tutor. The second aspect that this tutor-participant perspective implies, is the view of the tutor as learner. Although the tutor has particular expertise that s/he brings to the learning community as the representative of the institution, the tutor also presents her/himself as a learner, someone who is genuinely interested in learning through participation in the community. The concept of the tutor as ‘tutor-participant’ is important as it signals to the participants that everyone on the course is a member of the learning community, and that the idea of community implies a different kind of learning relationship between tutor and participant. Tutors and participants relate in highly personal ways, and these relationships shape a great deal of the learning on this course.

Collaborative and cooperative learning processes

Two types of learning are supported: Collaborative learning: course participants work in small learning sets to define a problem relating to the practise of networked learning which is amenable to collaborative group work. The purpose of this is to help participants:  experientially understand and critically evaluate the nature and complexity of collaborative group work in virtual learning environments. This understanding contributes to the development of their own professional practice in networked learning  work collaboratively on a shared problem which will lead to a portfolio outcome which can be shared with other learning sets  critically reflect on the experience using a set of self analysis tools. The outcome of this critical reflection is then made available to the learning set members, who also offer their ‘assessment’ of each participants’ self analysis. Cooperative learning: individuals within a learning set define an agenda for carrying out a course assignment chosen by themselves in consultation with their peer learners and tutor. This assignment is designed around a real problem or issue that they face in their professional practice (or which their organisation faces), which is amenable to being carried out by action research. The focus of the problem is always around some aspect of networked learning. This form of learning is based on principles of self-managed learning, as well as principles of cooperative learning.

Participants work cooperatively in virtual learning environments such as Lotus Notes and Web-CT to help and support each other in:  defining the problem and its overall scope

4  considering its appropriateness as an assignment for the MEd which will both illuminate some aspect of problem based professional practice and also contribute to an understanding of networked learning.  offering each other support in finding resources that may be useful in considering theoretical underpinnings for analysing the problem or issue being researched, and in considering the implications for professional networked learning practice.  participating in collaborative (self/peer/tutor) review and assessment procedures where each participant brings a set of criteria which they would like members to use in making judgements about their assignment, in addition to the use of a set of criteria which are offered by the tutor. The review is an opportunity for participants and tutor to read each other’s assignment and critically discuss and examine the issues in it. They offer insights into the meaning of the assignment as a method for examining the original problem, suggest additional references and resources that might be useful, and finally offer comment on the extent to which the assignment meets the writer’s set of criteria and those offered by the tutor.

Participant’s work on the course takes place in a series of four e-workshops on different themes, culminating in a research dissertation in year two. They are organised into groups of between 6 – 9 members, plus a tutor. They are given a very broad brief to work to in which they have to agree on a particular issue to investigate which is acceptable to all members and which requires collaborative learning within the group. The issue is defined as anything which is important to the development of the members’ professional practice and which will allow them to use the outcomes in real work settings.

Assessment

Collaborative assessment is a central learning process on the course. Although assessment on the course has the dual function of certification and assessment of learning outcomes, we wish to also emphasise the potential of assessment as a central learning process, as part of the ‘content’ of the course. We do this by building in time throughout the course for collaborative review and assessment and believe that it is time well spent (McConnell, 2002c).

The virtual learning environment

The University of Sheffield has chosen Web-CT as its virtual learning environment. Like all other VLE’s, Web-CT has some strengths and some weaknesses as a medium for conducting adult learning. There are a wide variety of tools that can be used to support different aspects of course designs. Basically it allows one to design an e-learning course which has Web pages, asynchronous (threaded) and synchronous discussion areas. It is a closed learning environment that is accessed via any web browser. Each person has a user name and password for security.

We have designed the home page so that all course material and resources can be accessed from one entry point. This home page has three areas with multiple hyperlinks in each: Resources: this has hyperlinks to a wide variety of useful resources, including pictures and biographies of each participant, tutor, course secretary and technician; access to the University of Sheffield library, CD-ROMS, e-journals (individual papers can be downloaded in PDF files to one’s own PC); links to all major search engines with evaluations of their effectiveness; access to specific e- learning Web resources and so on. Content and Participation: here we provide detailed information on the structure and content of each workshop, and access to a wide variety of asynchronous forums for community work, the work of learning sets and café areas. These forums are the most important areas on the course since it is here that negotiations, communications and production of course work takes place.

5 Notices: here up-dated information about the course, the outcomes of community decision making and the like are posted.

Conclusion

In this paper we have presented the educational philosophy underpinning the design and implementation of the global, completely virtual, University of Sheffield Masters in E- Learning. We believe that collaborative e-learning groups and communities are one important and positive way of organising adult learning in global, virtual adult education courses. In the following two papers of this symposium, we will indicate how our research into e-learning is helping us understand the nature, implications and benefits to learning of this design.

References

Bacsich P, Ash C, Boniwell K, Kaplan L, Mardell J and Caven-Atack A (1999), The costs of networked learning, Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University. See: http://www.shu.ac.uk/virtual_campus/cnl/ Bielaczyc K & Collins A (1999), ‘Learning communities in classrooms: a reconceptualisation of educational practices’ in Reigeluth C (ed.) Instructional design: theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum. Boud, D & Walker D (1998), ‘Promoting reflection in professional courses: the challenge of context’, Studies in Higher Education, 23, 2, pp.191-206. Brown J & Duguid P (1991), ‘Organisational learning and communities of practice: towards a unifying view of working, learning and innovation’, in Cohen M & Sproull S (eds) Organisational learning, London, Sage. Carr W & Kemmis S (1986), Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research, Brighton, Falmer Press. Hodgson V & Reynolds M (2002), ‘Ideas of community within education’, in Banks S, Goodyear P, Hodgson V and McConnell D (eds) Networked learning 2002: proceedings of the third international conference on networked learning, Sheffield. Lally V (2001), ‘Analysing teaching and learning in a networked collaborative learning environment: issues and work in progress’, in Day C & van Veen D (eds) Educational research in Europe yearbook 2001, Leuven, Garant/EERA. Lally V & de Laat M (2002), ‘Cracking the code: learning to collaborate and collaborating to learn in a networked environment’, in Stahl G (ed) Computer support for collaborative learning, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Elrbaum. Lave J & Wenger E (1991), Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. McConnell D (2000), Implementing computer supported cooperative learning, London, Kogan Page. McConnell D (2002a), ‘Action research and distributed problem based learning in continuing professional education’, Distance Education, 23, 1, pp.59-83 McConnell D (2002b), ‘Complexity, harmony and diversity of learning in collaborative e-learning continuing professional development groups’, in Stahl G (ed) Proceedings of CSCL Conference, Boulder, USA. Hillside, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McConnell D (2002c), ‘The experience of networked collaborative assessment’, Studies in Continuing Education, 24, 1, pp.73-92. Middlehurst R (2000), ‘The business of borderless education’, paper presented at the Conference on the Business of Borderless Education, QE11 Conference Centre, London, March, 2000.

6 Ryan Y (2000), ‘The business of borderless education: US case studies and the HE response’, paper presented at the Conference on The Business of Borderless Education, QE11 Conference Centre, London, March 2000. Schon D (1983), The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, New York, Basic Books. Wenger E (1998), Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Approaches to researching networked learning: the methodological challenge

Vic Lally

At the January 2002 Fifth International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, in Boulder, Colorado (Stahl, 2002), one of the stated aims was to articulate a new paradigm for ‘a distinctive form of learning research’. Surprisingly, perhaps, a browse through the conference proceedings (CSCL, 2002) soon reveals that, despite this, only a small minority of more than 50 long papers focused on the issues and practicalities of researching learning among communities in networked environments. In some ways this was disappointing and perplexing, given the stated aim. At the same time it was understandable. The challenges to be faced in researching learning communities are at once attractive, but also formidable. In recent work with advanced learning communities (on the E-Learning MEd at the University of Sheffield) learning is mediated by the virtual learning environments (VLE) WebCT. This can create the comforting feeling, for unwary researchers interested in learning processes, that the transcripts of discussions taking place in the VLEs contain easily accessible and significant evidence of learning interactions among the participants. There is no manual transcription to undertake, and it’s clear who said what, and when. Initially then, the problem can be understood in terms of analytical tools: reach for Content Analysis (CA) of the written messages. This was our own first approach. Immediately, however, we were confronted with a range of problems. Content Analysis is cumbersome and time consuming. The choice of coding categories is a complex issue in itself. What does one do about those aspects of learning that are not expressed, and therefore not amenable to content analysis? The emerging reality of this work is that the nature of learning interactions among participants in advanced learning communities is sometimes very complex and multi-dimensional. It is not easy to research using any single method; increasingly we think that no one method, even when refined, may be up to the task. Our aim in this paper is to explore a multi-method approach to understanding learning among members of these communities, and in so doing, attempt to understand a richness of learning beyond the capability of any one of the methods, when used by itself. We will describe the application of computer assisted CA to asynchronous discussion transcripts, and explore the use of ‘critical event recall’ to probe learning that is not expressed in the actual text records used as data CA. De Laat (2002) has also looked at a combined approach using Social Network Analysis (SNA) and CA, but there is insufficient space to describe this work here. In future work we aim to move towards a more coherent synthesis of these three methodologies. This is the longer term aim of our research collaboration.

Theoretical basis of learning, teaching and content analysis In previous work (Lally, 2001; Lally and de Laat, 2002) we have attempted to explore a range of aspects of collaborative learning in advanced learning communities, and begun to develop analytical coding frameworks in order to understand the complex tutoring and learning processes that are occurring. The students featured in these studies were professional

7 educators following a Master’s Programme in E-Learning. In the research project we are interested to explore the relationship between individual and group processes as they relate to knowledge construction and tutor processes, as these develop over time. Many authors, in attempting to define cognition in groups (group mediated cognition or gmc), have suggested that in a group meeting the situation itself may exert a strong mediating effect on individual cognitive and conceptual processes. The thinking of individuals is influenced by the group in which they are working. The merger of intellectual and social processes may be a fundamental feature of group mediated cognition. A second key feature is the tension between the conceptual structure or understanding (of the problem or ideas under discussion) of the group and that of the individuals within it. This tension is the driving force for the collective processing of the group. In this process, interaction between individuals, as well as their shared and individual cognitions, are the key aspects of co-construction of knowledge, meaning and understanding. However, the situation is further complicated because the participants in these learning processes are also engaged in tutoring processes. The students in the Master’s Programme in E-Learning are sophisticated groups of professionals. They are engaged in learning processes and also in tutoring processes as they support each other and the group as a whole. Tutoring processes in this course are not the exclusive domain of the designated tutors

Analysing networked teaching and learning with computer assisted content analysis In order to probe collaborative knowledge construction and tutoring in this learning environment we are using three approaches. The first is content analysis and involves ‘coding’ the contributions made to a 10 week discussion using two coding schemas. The first (Veldhuis-Diermanse and Biemans, 2000) is used to investigate knowledge construction. The second schema (adapted from Anderson, et al, 2000) is used to probe ‘tutor’ processes. The choice of coding schemas is an important one for this type of work. It could be argued that a more ‘grounded’ approach, using categories that emerge from a reading of the messages, would provide a more ‘authentic’ summary of the intentions of the participants. In our view this is a valid and important way of approaching the analysis. However, we wanted to connect with some of the conceptual and theoretical ideas about learning and tutoring in the literature rather than create de novo categories.

The central purpose of coding is to extract, generalise and abstract from the complexity of the original messages in order to find significant themes and develop theories about the situation that illuminate it. This is a balance between oversimplification, resulting in the loss of subtlety and insight into complex processes, and over-coding, where the themes and trends are still obscured by too many sub-categories. We used computer-assisted data analysis software (CAQDAS) with NVivo 1.1 to achieve this. The following tables (one and two) give an example of the results of our analyses of individual contributions to the workshop, using the two coding schemas. Table one shows percentages of units of meaning coded for learning processes for eight individuals, including the tutor, from the first phase of the activity. The total number of messages from the activity was approximately 1000. Our sample consisted of 10 per cent of these massages, spread equally between the beginning, middle and end phases of online activity. Table two show percentages of units of meaning coded for tutoring processes in the first phase, for the same individuals.

Focusing firstly on learning (table one), the codings suggest some clear patterns. In the beginning phase (shown in table), 60 percent of the learning processes are cognitive, and 20 per cent are metacognitive. This is the phase of activity when the task of carrying though a collaborative project, on an aspect of networked learning, is being conceptualised by the group. In the middle phase (table not included), however, this relationship changes. The cognitive activity rises to 81 per cent of all coded units of meaning while the metacognitive drops to 14 per cent. All of the participants are thinking, and discussing the concepts of the task itself. By the ending phase (table not included) the cognitive discussions have dropped back to 42 per cent of all units of meaning. Metacognitive discussion has also dropped; in this case to 20 per cent of all units. At the same time, miscellaneous discussion has increased considerably, from 1.3 per cent in the middle phase, to 28.8 per cent in the concluding phase. As the group members complete their project they may be moving away from thinking around the task and start to discuss and reflect upon it in a range of ways. At the same time,

8 distinctive individual profiles are discernible in these coding percentages. For example, Andrea is a student participant who makes extensive contributions to learning processes throughout the activity, although at lower levels in the middle phase. Katie, on the other hand, makes very few explicit contributions to any learning process. Margaret makes extensive contributions during the middle phase, but much less at other times. The tutor during this activity is Brian (denoted by * in the tables). During the activity he contributes at a low level in the beginning phase; makes no contribution in the middle phase and a low level of contribution at the end of the activity. A similar analysis was undertaken for tutoring processes occurring in the discussions (table two gives an example).

Beginning Learning (per cent) Phase

Type of Bill Katie Brian* Pauline Andrea Felicity Charles Margaret Total Learning Cognitive 0 2.6 5.2 1.3 22.1 6.5 14.3 7.8 59.8 Affective 0 2.6 1.3 0 5.2 1.3 3.9 0 14.3 Metacognitive 0 1.3 1.3 1.3 5.2 3.9 5.2 1.3 19.5 Miscellaneous 1.3 0 1.3 0 2.6 0 1.3 0 6.5 Total 1.3 6.5 9.1 2.6 35.1 11.7 24.7 9.1 100

Table 1 Units of Meaning Coded for Learning Type in the First Phase (*university ‘tutor’)

Beginning Phase Tutoring (per cent)

Type of Bill Katie Brian* Pauline Andrea Felicity Charles Margaret Total Tutoring Direct 0 0 3.3 3.3 0 0 0 0 6.6 Instruction Facilitation 1.6 5 13.3 1.6 8.3 0 8.3 3.3 41.64 Instructional 3.3 1.6 13.3 6.6 6.6 5 13.3 1.6 51.63 Design Total 4.99 6.66 29.99 11.65 14.99 5 21.66 4.99 100

Table 2 Units of meaning coded for tutoring type in the beginning phase (*university ‘tutor’)

The methodological issues raised by this type of study are considerable. The use of schemas to ‘code’ the messages is an attempt to ‘categorise’, and to some extent quantify the meanings embedded in the exchanges between participants. However, this is a considerable task. Because the total number of messages was around 1000, we had to ‘sample’ these in order to make the coding a manageable task. This sampling approach was used so that the sampled episodes of work retained meaning and coherence over time. This was important to us because we wanted to look at the development of tutoring and learning processes in the group, over time, as well as at individual totals. Our theoretical approach to learning has taken us in the direction of attempting to investigate both the individual processes and group processes, as well as the possible interactions between them. Furthermore, the

9 coding schemas required to capture the complexity of the activities were necessarily complex in themselves. There were a total of 60 categories and sub-categories. Some passages of text could have been coded using more than one category, because of the multiplicity of meanings that could be inferred from the text. At these points we had to make judgments about this and agree them in coding conversations between the two researchers. Given these difficulties, the use of coding in this way is still only a partial solution to the methodological challenges we identified at the beginning of this paper. It provides little insight into two other key aspects of the group’s processes: individual thinking that was not expressed in text messages, and participant dynamics, that is the patterns of reading of messages posted to the forum. The first of these issues is addressed in the next section of this paper.

Analysing networked teaching and learning with critical event recall (CER) The argument in this paper is that in order to gain deeper insight into collaborative knowledge construction and tutor processes we need to employ a multi-method approach. The second featured method, ‘Critical Event Recall’ (CER) is a method for investigating individual thinking that is not expressed in text messages, and hence not amenable to content analysis. I had previously been introduced to a form of ‘stimulated’ event recall by Jon Scaife at the University of Sheffield (UK). This was Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR), a process developed by Norman Kagan, commencing at Michigan State University in the early 1960s (Kagan, 1984; Kagan and Kagan, 1991). The basis of IPR, as it was developed by Kagan and others, is the realization that humans store vast amounts of information, feelings, impressions and ideas about the events, or ‘interpersonal processes’, in which they have participated. Because of the speed at which human interactions occur much of the detail of these processes is soon ‘forgotten’, and not available for subsequent reflection. However, Kagan and his co-workers discovered that it is possible to use video records of events to assist participants in recalling many details of the thoughts, feelings, and even physical responses, that happened at the time of the recorded event. In this way it is possible for recallers to become conscious of the original thoughts and feelings that they experienced during the event. These may not have been previously articulated by them, and as a result of the recall process they become aware of considerable detail that helps in reflecting and gaining deeper understanding of what was going on in the original processes (depicted in the video). The original events may have occurred in the recent past, or may have taken place months, or even years previously. In networked collaborative learning environments, such as the Sheffield E-Learning M.Ed. Programme, students and tutors are working in advanced learning communities with many complex learning interactions occurring simultaneously. There are no video records of these events but full textual records remain available on the WebCT server used to host the programme. The use of these records as a stimulus to recall of critical learning events occurring during the Programme workshops suggests itself as a way of investigating those aspects of processes not actively expressed during the events. We are not aware of any previous examples of the use of stimulated recall using text to investigate learning in networked collaborative environments. We have adopted two approaches to recall: in the first, participants are presented with summary analyses of learning events. This gives an overview of the patterns of learning and tutoring within the event. In the second approach, we use the full text of learning events. In both approaches participants were presented with these items in advance of the recall sessions so that they could familiarise themselves with the summary analyses and full text of the events. For example, Brian was provided with summary analyses from a ten week collaborative learning event involving himself and seven course participants. These analyses were the result of coding the event, that had taken place 14 months previously. The details of the coding procedure are available in Lally and De Laat (2002). The recall event with Brian and myself, using all six tables of summaries, occupied approximately 45 minutes. I spent an initial phase of the recall session helping Brian to clarify the meaning of the percentage figures in the tables and the way in which they had been calculated. For example, we discussed the meaning of the coding categories listed on the left hand side of the tables, and I provided Brian with examples of the kinds of utterances that they represented.

The recall event was very loosely structured by myself, and tended to follow a natural pattern arising from the structure of the six tables we were using for the recall process. However, it quickly became apparent that Brian wanted to focus on individuals in the group, including himself, rather than learning, tutoring, phases of work or other aspects of the experiences. After articulating patterns of individual behaviour, gleaned from the summary tables, he began to recall his impressions, at the time of the event, of the learning and tutoring behaviours of the participants. At several points in the recall process

10 I checked with Brian that he was in fact recalling how he felt and thought at the time of the original event, rather than what he thought about these behaviours now, i.e. at the time of the recall session. He confirmed that this was the case throughout the recall event (and two subsequent events not reported here).

Starting with himself, Brian commented that the tables showed him to be much more active at the start and end of the learning event, and much less so in the middle phase:

‘(I made a) conscious decision: (I had) a personal policy to be there at the start and the end’.

Here Brian was recalling a decision he made at the time to be much more visible to the other participants at both ends of the event, but to withdraw to a large extent in the middle phase of work. He went on to explain to me his thinking behind this strategy, and how it related to the way in which he wanted to give space to participants to work together and express their own ideas, not dominated by him. This revealed strategic thinking about his role as a tutor. The pattern indicated in the summary tables had stimulated his recall of the decisions he made at the time of the original event. Brian then went on to recall the behaviours of others in the group. Andrea was a significant participant in the event and Brian recalled several impressions of her, stimulated by the figures about her participation contained in the summaries: ‘She was an ever present person’. ‘She had a high profile because of her personality, both in the social area and the set area’. ‘She was very facilitative, in all her communications’. ‘I had a good rapport with Andrea in the café, and that meant it was easy to relate’. ‘Andrea’ already had a very strong model of this king of thing and engaged in it whereas [another participant] was struggling to understand it’. Brian recollected that at the time of the event that Andrea had considerable experience of working in the medium, and was able to recall this from seeing the summaries. He observed her facilitating others in the group, and her relatively high presence in the summaries immediately caused him to comment that this was his strong recollection of the way she worked for much of the time in the 10 week event. She was the biggest contributor of learning-type messages at the beginning and end of the event, and replaced Brian as the biggest contributor of tutoring type messages in the middle phase, when Brian had deliberately withdrawn.

The most important finding of this preliminary work with CER is that recall of important details of the tutor’s thinking at the time of the original event is possible using summary analyses of this kind. The recollections presented here indicate that the tutor engaged in many reflective and analytical observations about his own facilitation of the group and the behaviours of individuals within it, yet much of this thinking was not directly observable in the transcripts of the group’s work. In conclusion, then, we argue that Critical Event Recall has the potential to access aspects of learning and tutoring processes that are not directly available in group discussion transcripts. Furthermore, this tool can complement content analysis in an important way by using its results to probe ‘the thinking behind the text’ in collaborative work within advanced learning communities in networked environments.

Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we study both learning and tutoring processes, and the relations between them, within a group of collaborating professionals in an educational environment. We have also engaged with the methodological difficulties and complexities of this type of analysis. We have presented sample results of an approach to content analysis of messages exchanged during a professional development activity. This analysis has enabled the tentative identification of patterns of individual and group learning during the activity. They show, for example, how participants may operate quite differently, and yet within

11 discernible patterns, some being strong facilitators, while others offer little support to their collaborators. At the same time, we have indicated that the analysis of such complex interactions in advanced learning communities presents a strong methodological challenge for researchers. The use of coding schemas, for example, is beset with difficulties, some of which we have outlined. The need to complement coding analyses with other complimentary forms of analysis is clearly also very important in order to more fully understand the richness of these learning interactions. An important finding of our research is that CER can reveal important details of the tutor’s thinking at the time of the original event. The recollections presented here indicate that the tutor engaged in many reflective and analytical observations about his own facilitation of the group and the behaviours of individuals within it, yet much of this thinking was not directly observable in the transcripts of the group’s work, as revealed by CA. In conclusion, then, we argue that CER and CA, when combined, have the potential to access aspects of learning and tutoring processes that are not directly available when either approach is used by itself.

References Anderson T, Rourke L Garrison D & Archer W (2000), Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference context, retrieved 27/3/01 from the World Wide Web: http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/cmc/publications.html CSCL (2002),Computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community, retrieved 27/2/02 from the World Wide Web: http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/ De Laat M (2002), ‘Network and content analysis in an online community discourse’, paper presented at the Networked Learning Conference, Sheffield. Kagan N (1984), ‘Interpersonal process recall: basic methods and recent research, in Larsen D (ed) Teaching psychological skill, Monterey, California, Brooks Cole. Kagan N & Kagan H (1991), ‘IPR - a research/training model’, in Dewrick P (ed) Practical guide to using video in the behavioural sciences, Canada, Wiley. Lally V (2001), ‘Analysing teaching and learning in a networked collaborative learning environment: issues and work in progress’, in Day C & van Veen D (eds) Educational research in Europe yearbook 2001, Leuven, Garant/EERA. Lally V & de Laat M (2002), ‘Cracking the code: learning to collaborate and collaborating to learn in a networked environment’, in Stahl G (ed) Computer support for collaborative learning, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum. Stahl G (ed.) (2002), ‘Computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community, Hillsdale New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum. Tuckwell, N. B. (1980). Stimulated Recall: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical and Veldhuis-Diermanse A & Biemans H (2000), ‘Is CSCL an adequate tool to reach a deep level of academic learning?’, in De Laat M (ed)

Some learning benefits of collaborative e-learning groups and communities

David McConnell

Introduction

The first paper in this symposium presented the theoretical and conceptual issues underpinning the design and implementation of the Masters in E-Learning at the University of Sheffield. In this paper I

12 will briefly consider some of the benefits of collaborative and cooperative group work in promoting learning. I will then briefly present the findings of a study which examines the ways in which the work of e-learning groups implicitly and explicitly helps them develop and sustain themselves as communities of learners. I will finish with some general observations on the nature of e-learning groups and communities.

Some researchers report finding it difficult to engage some students in meaningful and productive work in e-learning environments (Jones, 1998, 2000; Tansley and Bryson, 2000), or find that virtual learning environments make no contribution to learning (Veen, et al, 1998). Others have suggested that this medium is impersonal (e.g. Wegerif, 1998). This is not our experience. It is true that textual communication can be misinterpreted and that care, attention and sensitivity has to be given to communicating in this medium. But, as I hope to indicate in this paper (and as we have indicated in the first paper in this symposium) when time and attention is given to a course design that develops and maintains group work and a learning community, the quality of the experience can be very satisfying and the learning outcomes highly acceptable (McConnell, 2000).

The benefits of collaborative group work in learning In their work into the relative impact on achievement of competitive, individualistic and cooperative learning efforts, Johnson and Johnson (1990) looked at 323 studies. Their conclusions indicate that cooperative methods lead to higher achievement than competitive or individulastic ones when measured by a variety of possible indices. They used four indices of achievement : 1. Mastery and retention of material. Students in cooperative learning environments perform at a higher level than those working in competitive or individualstic environments. When achievement in ‘pure’ cooperative groups is compared with achievement in groups using a mixture of cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning methods, then the results show that the ‘pure’ methods consistently produce significantly higher achievements. 2. Quality of reasoning strategies Individuals working in cooperative groups use focusing strategies more often than those working competitively or individualistically. Learning problems are therefore solved faster. Those involved in cooperative work use elaboration and metacognition strategies (such as showing an awareness, and self-control of learning) more often than those working in competitive and individualistic situations. Higher level reasoning is promoted by cooperative learning. When comparisons are made between students using cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning strategies for tasks requiring higher or lower level reasoning strategies to solve them, students in cooperative groups discovered and used more higher level strategy methods. 3. Process gains. Process gains, such as new ideas and solutions, are generated through group interactions that are not generated when persons are working on their own. 4. Transference of learning. There is a high degree of group-to-individual transference after working in cooperative groups, i.e. when individuals have worked in a cooperative environment, their learning is transfered to situations where they have to work on their own.

Cooperative learning involves dialogue between learners, and a great degree of interaction generally. This increases the learner's grasp of conceptual material. In developmental terms, each student who works closely with their peers will be exposed to situations where their own conceptual skills are stretched by their interactions. Their actual developmental level and their potential developmental level are narrowed by the interactions they engage in with their peers. This is called the zone of

13 proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Making this happen in e-learning environments is quite a challenge.

It is not enough to learn how to direct one’s own learning as an individual learner abetted by artifacts such as textbooks. Learning to learn in an expanded sense fundamentally involves learning to learn from others, learning to learn with others, learning to draw the most from cultural artefacts other than books, learning to mediate others’ learning not only for their sake but for what that will teach oneself, and learning to contribute to the learning of a collective. (Salomon & Perkins, 1998: 21).

Developing and sustaining community How does an e-learning group develop and sustain itself as a community? What I would like to do here is present an example of emergent research in order to illustrate some aspects of the work of e-learning groups. The study is an examination of the ways in which the work of the e-group implicitly and explicitly helps to develop and sustain it as a community of learners. The question of what keeps an e- learning group working together when there is no physical, face-to-face contact, is an intriguing one. It is a central question of concern about education in e-learning environments.

Developing a positive orientation to working together is a central aspect of group work. The first point to make is that the level and quality of interaction, discussion and collaboration in the groups on the MEd is very high. The second point refers back to our paper on the design of the Med, where we indicated that the design of any learning event, and the way in which the technology of distributed learning is used to support the event are important factors. Extrinsic incentives to collaborate and work together – such as assessment systems that reward collaboration – are also central to keeping the group of students together. How then does this group sustain itself?

In the study (McConnell, 2002) I identified that collaborative e-learning groups often work in ways which intrinsically sustain themselves. Their work has an ebb and flow to it, but there are often important points when they work towards producing a collective experience or product, which I call a ‘milestone’: A milestone is a point in the work of the group when something pivotal occurs. Various kinds of milestones can be discerned, such as the group making a decision, members agreeing to adopt it and then proceeding to carry it out. Another kind of milestone is an event which focuses their work on one particular task and which seems to help them understand where they are with their work, and how to proceed beyond this point. Milestones are points in the work of the group when energy rises, and the group members often become excited and highly communicative. (McConnell, 2002: 72) An example of a milestone may help to illustrate their general importance. One e-learning group on the MEd decided to develop an Intranet site in order to allow each member the opportunity to explore the many tools and facilities that Intranets offer. In doing this they would experientially learn about using Intranets. They then wrote a ‘story’ about their experience, aimed at ‘selling’ the idea to colleagues in their place of work who are unlikely to know about Intranets and their potential educational benefits.

This activity – the Intranet Stories- was clearly an important event in the life of the group. It was the first time each member had taken time-out to produce a piece of work to be shared with the others. In this respect it was therefore challenging as well as potentially risky. It brought a sense of excitement to their work and was highly motivating. Each story was posted on the Web-CT forum over a two-week period. Fig. 1 (see following page) shows the relationship of this milestone to others in the group’s work.

From the analysis of the work of this group it is clear that the stories help in the development of the emerging identity of the group because it is the group who has chosen this particular activity for working on their e-learning. They have not been told to focus on this issue by any external stakeholder

14 (such as a tutor). It is they who ‘own’ it. In addition, each member has negotiated to focus on a particular aspect of the work which they wish to research and which is related in some important way to their professional practice. For example, Anne has chosen to work on the potential of Intranets for supporting language teaching. Betty is researching the ways in which Intranets can be used in nursing education. Michael is interested in the ways in which he can use Intranets to support tutors in a virtual management education course, and so on. This helps keep their work focused on authentic problems that have real relevance for their practice. In this case, the community is thus forged through processes of self-management, sharing and engagement with each other’s stories and the insights this affords into each other’s practice. The constant presence and availability of everyone online means that it is possible for them to continue discussing the nature of their work and the different perspectives that can be brought to it. As a milestone in the work of the group, the period of story telling:  Gives them access to new ideas and opportunities  Helps them understand each others professional practice and the different contexts in which each member works  Helps them ‘see’ the diversity of their group and appreciate the importance and richness of this  Offers members opportunities to discuss and share ideas, Web and other resources and insights into their practice  Helps them set new goals for their work  Allows them to re-draft their stories on the basis of members’ comments and feedback.

The achievement of the work associated with a ‘milestone’ seems to be integral to the groups’ development and to the production of the final collective product of which the Intranet is only one part. The achievement of milestones frees-up the group to be creative, challenging and at times risk taking. With the achievement of a milestone the group often moves into a period of very focused, highly interactive discussion accompanied by a great deal of ‘off stage’ research activity by each member. Achieving a milestone helps move the group forward.

From the analysis of the work of the groups, several kinds of milestone can be discerned, each having a particular purpose and impact on the group:  Decisions in synchronous chat sessions leading to agreements, which in turn lead to great activity. Synchronous chat sessions provide an opportunity for the group to ‘convene’, focus on a specific topic which has been agreed in advance in the asynchronous forum, and forge their identity as a group. Chat sessions often lead to increased activity in the asynchronous forum as the group picks up on points covered in the chat, elaborates their meaning and discusses how to put their decisions into operation.  The production of artefacts, such as drafts of the product report and the design of an Intranet site. The production of artefacts seems to serve the purpose of letting the group see, in some concrete way, that they are progressing with their project.  Sharing input to the production of documents, such as the sharing of each member’s story of how they learned to use an Intranet. These kinds of milestones galvanise the group and bring them together at one point in their journey.  The adoption of new forms of working patterns, such as working in sub-groups. Here the focus is on sub-groups taking charge of particular tasks which the group has agreed are necessary in order to meet the requirements of the general, collective task. Adopting new forms of work patterns serves to give sub-groups permission to work alone.

Throughout the life of these e-learning groups, negotiation is a central process and can take many forms. The groups negotiate around:  meaning e.g. of their enterprise, of their identity  the focus of the problem

15  who should work on what  time-scales for producing the final product  processes for communicating and working together. The identity of the members of the group with the group, and the development of their own individual identity within the group, occurs through these complex forms of negotiation. The process of becoming accountable to the work and purposes of the group has been described by Wenger (1998: 152) as a display of competence, involving three dimensions:  mutual engagement: we develop expectations about how to interact, how to treat each other and how to work together.  accountability to the enterprise: the enterprise helps define how we see the world of the community. We develop a shared understanding of it, its culture and how to participate in its values and activities. We know what we are there for.  a process of negotiating a repertoire: through constant membership of the community we begin to understand its practices, interpret them and develop a repertoire of practice that is recognisable to members of the community. We make use of what has happened in the community as a way of achieving this.

According to Wenger, these three dimensions are necessary components of identity formation within the community of learners and lead to the development of competence. Meaning needs to be negotiated through dialogue and discussion. In communities of practice ‘meaning making’ is negotiated through the processes, relations, products and experiences of the community.

Problem-based collaborative learning, as it occurs in this particular context, has an affect on, and implications for, the identity of course participants. The focus of learning is the boundary between the participants’ identity as a member of the community and their identity as a practitioner in their own professional field. The action research approach which is an important underpinning method supporting learning on the course helps participants make links between these two boundaries. They are invited to act within the e-learning group and at the same time act within their practice. The boundary between the two may be distinct on starting the course, but becomes blurred and intersects as participants move between the two communities.

Conclusion E-learning group work is a complex social phenomenon. Many factors influence the ways in which individuals participate in e-learning groups. There is a real need for us to address the interpersonal relations, such as member support and group well being of those involved if we are to successfully design for students working in e-learning groups, and offer rich and supportive environments for their learning.

In the above example, we can see individual students bringing their particular individual learning issues, concerns and problems to the group and contracting with the group to work cooperatively in addressing them. At another level, we can see the group posing problems and raising interesting questions and working collaboratively in trying to address them. Learning is always situated in the life of the group and the particular, formal learning context in which it functions. It always has a social dimension. However, individuals are learning by themselves as well as the group learning by itself. The individual and the social aspects of learning occur side by side.

Students’ knowledge of how e-learning groups work i.e. knowledge about the group itself, has an impact on their learning, self-identity and professional practice. Knowledge of this kind is particularly useful at the moment in helping us understand what happens in e-learning groups. Tutors and students will be able to operate more effectively by virtue of being better informed. This is a new form of

16 education, and course designers and tutors will need to understand its implications for adult learning and teaching.

Knowing how e-learning groups and communities work can give us the confidence to organise e- learning courses in this way. It helps us understand the diverse ways in which members of e-groups approach their studies and communicate their understandings within the social environment of the group. It also helps us understand the complexity of learning in e-learning environments, and can help us appreciate that diversity among e-learning groups is inevitable and indeed welcome. Rich and diverse learning outcomes often emerge in these circumstances.

References Johnson D and Johnson R (1990), ‘Cooperative learning and achievement’, in Sharan S (ed) Cooperative learning: theory and research, New York, Praeger. Jones C (1998), Context, content and cooperation: an ethnographic study of collaborative learning online, PhD Dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester UK. Jones C (2000) ‘Understanding students’ experiences of collaborative networked learning’, in Asensio M, Foster J, Hodgson V & McConnell D (2000), Networked learning 2000: innovative approaches to lifelong learning and higher education through the internet ,University of Sheffield (Also published at : http://collaborate.shef.ac.uk./nl2000.html). McConnell D (2000), Implementing computer supported cooperative Learning, London, Kogan Page. McConnell D (2002), ‘Action research and distributed problem-based learning in vontinuing professional education, Distance Education, 23, 1, pp.59-83 Salomon G & Perkins D (1998), ‘Individual and social aspects of learning’, Review of Educational Research, 23, p.1-24. Tansley C & Bryson C (2000), ‘Virtual seminars - a viable substitute for traditional approaches?’, Innovations in Education and Training International, 37, 4, pp.335-345. Veen W, Lam I & Taconis R (1998), ‘A virtual workshop as a tool for collaboration: towards a model of telematics learning environments’, Computers and Education, 30, 1-2, pp.31-9. Vygotsky L (1978), Mind in society, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. Wegerif R (1998), ‘The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2, 1, pp.34-49. Wenger E (1998), Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.