Pahwa,Anil. Gruenbacher, Don M. Starrett, Shelli K. and Morocos, Medhat M. 2009. Distance Learning for Power Professionals: Virtual classrooms allow students flexibility in location & time. IEEE Power & Energy Magazine Jan./Feb. 2005:53-58.
This article examines the benefits to distance learning for professionals, particularly those in the engineering field. The article suggests that it is critical to evaluate distance learning with respect to: student learning, pedagogy, delivery media, logistics, and cost. As you would expect, the authors find that the two main benefits to distance learning are flexibility in time and location for those already in the workforce, but suggests that in today's economy, cost-effectiveness is also becoming increasingly important.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Distance Learning for Power Professionals: Virtual classrooms allow students flexibility in location & time
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
CMC Modes for Learning Tasks at a Distance
Paulus, Trena M. 2007. CMC Modes for Learning Tasks at a Distance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 12 (4): 1322–1345. International Communication Association.
Purpose and Audience
The purpose of the article “CMC Modes for Learning Tasks at a Distance” by Trena M. is to analyze modes of communication for various learning tasks in distance-learning courses. The audience is those in international communication, higher education, and technical communication fields. The article is primarily aimed at those in academia.
Organization
The organization of the article is as follows:
Introduction
In this study, case study and computer-mediated discourse analysis procedures are used to investigate transcripts and individual reflections of 10 small groups of distance learners. The findings reveal that the discussion forum was used significantly more often for conceptual moves and for later phases of the knowledge construction process. Email was used more for social moves, and chat was used more for later phases of knowledge construction. Implications for providing groups with various CMC modes to complete tasks and for advising novice online learners about the affordances of each mode are addressed.
Theoretical Framework
This section states the four research questions asked by Paulus:
RQ1: Which communication mode(s) do experienced distance learners choose as they collaborate on project-based tasks?
RQ2: What do they talk about in each mode?
RQ3: Which phases of knowledge construction are present in each mode?
RQ4: How do the participants choose which modes to use for various aspects of the task?
Method
This article reports findings from a larger study of small group interactions in an online graduate level educational psychology course at a large Midwestern university (Paulus, 2005, 2006). This fully-distance course lasted 12 weeks and covered theories of teaching and learning. During two-week units, the instructor assigned the 21 students to small groups to synthesize and apply the concepts being learned. New groups were formed after every two-week unit so that students could work with different people. The tasks were designed to promote collaboration, as suggested by Hathorn and Ingram (2002b).
Findings
RQ1: Which communication mode(s) do experienced distance learners choose as they collaborate on project-based tasks?
Most groups relied primarily, if not exclusively, on the forum. Seventy-nine percent of all moves were exchanged in the forum. Only two groups, Orange and Plum, used chat. These chat messages accounted for 16% of moves exchanged by the 10 groups. All but two of the groups exchanged at least one email; however, email accounted for only 5% of the moves.
RQ2: What do they talk about in each mode?
A higher percentage of conceptual moves were exchanged in the forum (42%) than logistical (39%), social (16%), or technical (3%) moves. A higher percentage of logistical moves were exchanged in chat (41%) and email (37%). In chat, conceptual moves (28%) and in email, social moves (32%) were the most frequent after logistics. Logistical, social, and technical moves were then grouped together and labeled ‘‘non-conceptual’’ for comparison with moves labeled as ‘‘conceptual.’’ More non-conceptual than conceptual moves were exchanged in all three modes.
RQ3: Which phases of knowledge construction are present in each mode?
Sixty-five percent of the forum moves and 57% of the chat moves were coded as Phase 1 (share information). Chat had a higher percentage of Phase 2 (discover inconsistencies), 3 (negotiate meaning), and 5 (agree on compromise) moves than did the forum. Frequency counts for Phases 2 to 5 were grouped together (and called ‘‘later phases of knowledge construction’’) for further analysis. The forum had more conceptual moves than either email or chat. Later phases of knowledge construction occurred more often in the forum and in chat. There were more logistical moves exchanged in email and in chat. Social moves overall were most common in email.
RQ4: How do the participants choose which modes to use for various aspects of the task?
While groups did use email for a few specific purposes, it was not the primary means of communication. These findings differ from those of Poole (2000), whose students chose to use email rather than chat or the forum for their projects. They differ as well from those of Curtis and Lawson (2001), who found that 85% of students chose email rather than uploading files or using the forum. McLoughlin (2002), in her study of undergraduate groups working online to complete tasks, found that successful teams actively used the forum to share ideas and discuss the specifics of the project.
Discussion
Conclusion
Notes
1 The names of participants and of the course management system have been changed.
2 Students were highly encouraged to communicate within the course system. Moreover, since a portion of their grade was based on team process, it is believed that all communication was captured for analysis.
References
About the Author
Trena M. Paulus [tpaulus@utk.edu] is an Assistant Professor of in the Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling at the University of Tennessee where she teaches courses in research methods and collaborative learning. She investigates meaning-making processes in online learning environments utilizing methods of discourse and narrative analysis.
Purpose and Audience
The purpose of the article “CMC Modes for Learning Tasks at a Distance” by Trena M. is to analyze modes of communication for various learning tasks in distance-learning courses. The audience is those in international communication, higher education, and technical communication fields. The article is primarily aimed at those in academia.
Organization
The organization of the article is as follows:
Introduction
In this study, case study and computer-mediated discourse analysis procedures are used to investigate transcripts and individual reflections of 10 small groups of distance learners. The findings reveal that the discussion forum was used significantly more often for conceptual moves and for later phases of the knowledge construction process. Email was used more for social moves, and chat was used more for later phases of knowledge construction. Implications for providing groups with various CMC modes to complete tasks and for advising novice online learners about the affordances of each mode are addressed.
Theoretical Framework
This section states the four research questions asked by Paulus:
RQ1: Which communication mode(s) do experienced distance learners choose as they collaborate on project-based tasks?
RQ2: What do they talk about in each mode?
RQ3: Which phases of knowledge construction are present in each mode?
RQ4: How do the participants choose which modes to use for various aspects of the task?
Method
This article reports findings from a larger study of small group interactions in an online graduate level educational psychology course at a large Midwestern university (Paulus, 2005, 2006). This fully-distance course lasted 12 weeks and covered theories of teaching and learning. During two-week units, the instructor assigned the 21 students to small groups to synthesize and apply the concepts being learned. New groups were formed after every two-week unit so that students could work with different people. The tasks were designed to promote collaboration, as suggested by Hathorn and Ingram (2002b).
Findings
RQ1: Which communication mode(s) do experienced distance learners choose as they collaborate on project-based tasks?
Most groups relied primarily, if not exclusively, on the forum. Seventy-nine percent of all moves were exchanged in the forum. Only two groups, Orange and Plum, used chat. These chat messages accounted for 16% of moves exchanged by the 10 groups. All but two of the groups exchanged at least one email; however, email accounted for only 5% of the moves.
RQ2: What do they talk about in each mode?
A higher percentage of conceptual moves were exchanged in the forum (42%) than logistical (39%), social (16%), or technical (3%) moves. A higher percentage of logistical moves were exchanged in chat (41%) and email (37%). In chat, conceptual moves (28%) and in email, social moves (32%) were the most frequent after logistics. Logistical, social, and technical moves were then grouped together and labeled ‘‘non-conceptual’’ for comparison with moves labeled as ‘‘conceptual.’’ More non-conceptual than conceptual moves were exchanged in all three modes.
RQ3: Which phases of knowledge construction are present in each mode?
Sixty-five percent of the forum moves and 57% of the chat moves were coded as Phase 1 (share information). Chat had a higher percentage of Phase 2 (discover inconsistencies), 3 (negotiate meaning), and 5 (agree on compromise) moves than did the forum. Frequency counts for Phases 2 to 5 were grouped together (and called ‘‘later phases of knowledge construction’’) for further analysis. The forum had more conceptual moves than either email or chat. Later phases of knowledge construction occurred more often in the forum and in chat. There were more logistical moves exchanged in email and in chat. Social moves overall were most common in email.
RQ4: How do the participants choose which modes to use for various aspects of the task?
While groups did use email for a few specific purposes, it was not the primary means of communication. These findings differ from those of Poole (2000), whose students chose to use email rather than chat or the forum for their projects. They differ as well from those of Curtis and Lawson (2001), who found that 85% of students chose email rather than uploading files or using the forum. McLoughlin (2002), in her study of undergraduate groups working online to complete tasks, found that successful teams actively used the forum to share ideas and discuss the specifics of the project.
Discussion
Conclusion
Notes
1 The names of participants and of the course management system have been changed.
2 Students were highly encouraged to communicate within the course system. Moreover, since a portion of their grade was based on team process, it is believed that all communication was captured for analysis.
References
About the Author
Trena M. Paulus [tpaulus@utk.edu] is an Assistant Professor of in the Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling at the University of Tennessee where she teaches courses in research methods and collaborative learning. She investigates meaning-making processes in online learning environments utilizing methods of discourse and narrative analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
