Bordia 1997 review (business, sociological, psychological)

Prashant Bordia (1997)

Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature.

Journal of Business Communication, 34,1,99-118.

Review, mostly experimental studies- business, sociological psychological ( up to 1997).

Some limitations merely technical

CMC - Reduced normative social pressure, more equal participation ( compounded by experience whether face to face or CMC), greater tendency to put forward decision preferences, more ideas generation BUT preference for Face to face when it comes to resolving disagreement.

Reviewed 18 experimental studies of CMC from business, sociological & psychological databases. Most of the studies used student samples with varying degrees of experience in CMC. Also, the studies differ on the nature of the task, the time allotted to complete the task, the degree of anonymity, and group member proximity in the CMC condition.

Proposition 1: CMC groups take longer to complete the allotted task.

Yes but 40% due to typing.

Proposition 2: In a given time period CMC groups produce fewer remarks than FTF groups.

7/18 studies looked at this variable, 5 found in the affirmative.

CMC groups have about equal or more task-oriented remarks and decision proposals (Dubrovsky et al., 1991; Siegel et al., 1986). Weisband (1992) reported more implicit decision preferences, explicit decision proposals, social pressure remarks, process remarks, and task irrelevant remarks in the CMC condition. According to McGuire et al. (1987), there were about the same number of remarks advocating a position in the CMC and the FTF groups. Thus, in terms of exchanging task related comments, CMC and FTF groups are not too different. The difference seems to be in the social-emotional exchange. FTF groups have more tension release and agreement statements, while CMC groups have a tendency of giving more suggestions, orientation, opinions (Hiltz et al., 1986), formal expressions, and fewer spontaneous questions (Kiesler, Zubrow, & Moses, 1985).

Proposition 3 CMC groups perform better than FTF groups on idea generation tasks.

Gallupe, Dennis, Cooper, Valacich, Bastianutti, and Nunamaker (1992) observed that, as group size increased, productivity per person decreased in FTF groups but stayed the same in CMC groups.

The major advantage of CMC groups lies in reduced production blocking and evaluation apprehension (Gallupe, Cooper, Grise, & Bastianutti, 1994). Gallupe et al. (1994) effectively demonstrated that, when production blocking is introduced in the CMC condition (freezing the keyboard, introducing "turn taking" and "first in" procedures),

performance decreased dramatically.

Proposition 4: There is greater equality of participation in CMC groups.

Equality of participation in the CMC condition is a fairly consistent finding. In addition, in CMC groups, the difference between high and low status member participation is less (Dubrovsky et al., 1991) and they are less likely to have one individual dominating

the discussion (Hiitz et al., 1986).

Interestingly, Adrianson and Hjelmquist (1991) found no difference in participation between the CMC groups and FTF groups, but they noted a strong effect of experience. Experienced subjects participated more equally in the two conditions

Proposition 5: When time is limited, CMC groups perform better than FTF groups on tasks involving less, and worse on tasks requiring more, social-emotional interaction. Given enough time, CMC groups perform as well as FTF groups.

Strong evidence supports the idea that, when a task involves less social-emotional interaction (such as idea generation), CMC groups perform better than FTF groups. For example, studies of group brainstorming reveal that CMC groups produce more nonredundant ideas than FTF groups (Gallupe et al., 1991). However, because of less

social-emotional interaction in CMC, these groups do not perform as well as FTF groups in tasks that require more social-emotional conversation (Kiesler et al, 1985) or increased interdependence (Straus& McGrath, 1994).

Proposition 6: There is reduced normative social pressure in CMC groups.

Several indirect and direct findings in this literature seem to indicate that there is less normative interpersonal or social pressure in CMC groups. First, CMC groups take longer to reach consensus (Dubrovsky et al., 1991; McGuire et al., 1987; Weisband, 1992). Second, there is greater opinion change and conformity to group decision

in FTF groups (Adrianson & Hjelmquist, 1991), and less agreement in CMC groups (Hiltz et al., 1986). These findings indirectly suggest reduced normative pressure in CMC groups.

Proposition 7: Perception (understanding) of partner and task is poorer in CMC groups.

Most studies affirm this proposition

Researchers have also reported on how the group member, who finally records the group's choice or decision, makes more errors in the CMC condition than in the FTF condition.

Proposition 8: In CMC, evaluation of the communication partner is poorer under conditions of limited time. Evaluation of the medium is influenced by the type of the task.

Some research studies affirm, some don’t. Also there are consequences that depend on this proposition.

Straus and McGarth (1994) noted that, as tasks needed more interdependence, the difference in satisfaction with the medium increased (lower satisfaction expressed for CMC).

the function "giving or receiving orders" produced no difference for medium (both media equally good); whereas, "resolving disagreements" had the maximum

difference (FTF medium preferred).

type of task seems to decide which medium is favored. In the case of idea-generation (brainstorming) tasks for example, the CMC condition was favored. Subjects in the FTF condition rated the task as more difficult, were less comfortable with the process, believed

they had participated less, and were more apprehensive than were subjects in the CMC condition (Gallupe et al., 1991).

Proposition 9a: There is higher incidence of uninhibited behavior in CMC groups.

Some studies yes some no.

Proposition 9b: CMC induces a state of deindividuation, which in turn leads to uninhibited behavior.

In the literature on CMC there is some confusion over the effects of deindividuation. Further research needs to be done to resolve identity and self-awareness issues in CMC.

Proposition 10: CMC groups, as compared to FTF groups, exhibit less choice shift or attitude change.

Findings comparing choice shift or attitude change in CMC and FTF groups are contradictory.

Refs to follow up?

Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making:

communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized

conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.

Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Johnson, K. (1989). Experiments in group decision making,

3: Disinhibition, deindividuation. and group process in pen name and real

name computer conferences. Decision Support Systems, 5, 217-232.

Murphy - stages of collaboration

Elizabeth Murphy (2004)

Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion

British Journal of Educational Technology, 35,4,421-431

Definitions: collaboration (purposive sharing)

Frameworks – conceptual framework for collaboration: interaction, articiculating individual perspectives, accommodating and reflecting on individual perspectives, developing & building shared goals and purposes, producing shared artefacts.

Method Instrument for measuring content based on this framework ie subcodes for each stage

Findings: most did not show any evidence of accommodating to the perspectives of others.

Conclusion: ‘higher level processes of collaboration need to be more explicitly and effectively promoted.

Collaboration

P421 ‘ Collaboration is more than interaction and requires ’coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem’ (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995,970). Collaboration represents a ‘purposive relationship’ the intent of which is ‘to produce something to solve a problem, create or discover something’ (Schrage, 1995,29) and to work together to achieve shared goals (Kaye 1992: Rochelle and Tealey, 1995).

(KRO responsible for the emboldened)

p422 ‘ in order for interaction to lead to collaboration in a context of online learning, specific measures must be taken to actively and consciously promote collaboration’

In order to promote collaboration the following are necessary

Understanding of the concept

Understanding how it manifests online

Identification & measurement

Supports and scaffolds that move discussants beyond interaction to collaboration.

Paper is about an identification & measurement instrument. The instrument is based on, p422, ‘ the development of a model which conceptualises collaboration on a continuum of processes that move from social presence to production of an artefact’ This concept gave a preliminary version of the instrument that covered six processes. After application the instrument was further developed to provided indicators for each process.

Conceptual framework for collaboration ( six stage process)

1. Interaction – p 422 ‘ participants show awareness of each other’s presence and begin to relate as a group’ key element is social presence which creates cohesion which feeds back into more interaction.

2. Articulating individual perspectives – p422 participants ‘do not explicitly reference the perspectives of others or solicit feedback from them’ ‘postings at this stage may read like a series of monologues (Henri, 1995)’.

3. Accommodating and reflecting on the perspectives of others

4. Co-constructing shared meaning p423 ‘ as participants articulate and externalise their perspectives, areas of disagreement or conflict become explicit. When individuals’ perspectives are challenged , they must work together to produce shared meaning ( O’Malley, 1995).

5. Developing & building shared goals and purposes

6 Producing shared artefacts

Producing shared artefacts note p423 the author argues that ‘ until this something new has been envisioned and created, collaboration is not complete’ ( KRO is this statement due to the influence of the fostering creativity researchers)..

The author argues that the earlier stage processes are prerequisites for the achievement of shared purpose and goal, but that ‘ participation at the lower levels does not guarantee that higher levels will be automatically reached’

Method

Based on group of eleven ( KRO is this two many, to what extent does collaboration depend on the group and its structure?) practioners ( pre-service teachers of French as a second language) over 4 weeks. Course module involved a three-step approach to collaborative problem solving consult, gather, produce. After each stage individuals are asked to compare individual and joint perspectives. 103 messages.

Instrument & Indicators on page 426-427

Results

P428 ‘ the process/indicator which occurred most often was ‘ articulating individual perspectives: statement of personal opinion or beliefs making no reference to perspectives of others (IO)’ 69/103 messages. Most did not show any evidence of accommodating to the perspectives of others.

Although students did get to the stage of questioning others perspectives P429 ‘ there were only two instances in which a participant directly responded to a question raised by another participant’ i.e. only two instances that meaning was being co-constructed… Only one instance of the fifth process , building a shared solution.

Similarity between these findings and other work

P 429 ‘ findings similar to the conclusion reached by Murphy and Laferriere (2001) in their analysis of two online asynchronous discussion forums using the TORI model of group development. In that study, the groups were moved through three stages

1. Trust formation & Open communication
2. Realisation of goals
3. Interinfluence.

In neither study did participants reach the third stage. ie the individual perspective prevailed.

Conclusion

P430 ‘ the higher level processes of collaboration need to be more explicitly and effectively promoted’

Tolmie, disgreement

Andrew Tolmie

CEN Methods seminar 3

Link this with So's paper on optional CMC

contingency detection ( explicit v implicit knowledge)

how important is disagreement? social allows disagreement to happen productively, asks how important is competition in dialogue?

Technology Enhanced Language Teaching & Learning

SOAS & UCL Cetls

modification of current practice evidence for unequivocal pedagogical value of taking advantage of communicative technology

aim for authentic web based communication with meaning rather than using it as a tool

pedagogical aim for language learning = accuracy ( but this is challenged by texting & twittering) + fluency + agency.

getting used to elearning

vulnerability - security

incompetence - expertise

informal - formal

Second Life

http://www.ict4lt.org

Module 1.5, Section 14.2.1

EUROCALL/CALICO

Virtual World SIG

http://virtualworldssig.ning.com

experience of being a newbie - http://kareliakondor.blip.tv

So - Method for studying CMC, optional group findings

H.-J. So (2009)

When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25,2, 143-160

Interesting points: Uptake of CMC interplay of technical & pedagogical factors; participation & design.

Definitions CSCL( good one on meaning making), social presence ( as a perception? real? salience? community & therefore belonging?) collaboration ( less structured than collective)

Methodological instruments:

Collaborative – 5 categories, planning, contributing, seeking input, technology, social interaction) with sub codes eg challenging, explaining

Questionnaire on relevant ICT experience (?how does it compare with KROs)

Thematic analysis of interviews ( KRO whether appropriate)

Social presence – modification of Rourke

Findings :

3 themes pointing to complex picture ( see quote on this)

little advantage taken of challenging, explaining etc during collaboration i.e. low level of critical behaviour)

social presence indicator patterns depended on group ( different also to KRO with careers)

CMC uptake

P143 ‘ the phenomenon of wide adoption and utilization is explained by the interplay of technical and pedagogical factors. From technical perspectives the simplicity of usage of online discussion, easy access and compatibility with existing practices are important attributes ‘ Instructors can use them to extend discussion beyond the classroom’.

Aim

P144 ‘ a better understanding of the nature of participation and collaborative learning’ by looking at

RQs ( based on the proposition that different participation and motivation conditions may reveal different interactional and dialogic patterns)

• How do groups decide to use CMC tools in the first place? Used self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews.
• Once a group decision is made, how do group members participate in asynchronous discussion forums to complete collaborative learning tasks? Content analysis

Levels of analysis

1. ‘Students’ experiences and perceptions of online discussion forums were collected, both in self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews, to examine the reasons behind how groups arrive at making decisions with regard to using or not using CMC tools under the conditions whrein these students were taking blended learning-format course.’

2. ‘more closely examined how members in voluntary groups participated in online discussion forums to complete a group project requiring fairly complex data gathering and research processes. For this micro-level content analysis this research is particularly interested in two constructs collaborative learning and social presence.’

Topics & Definitions ( from literature review)

CSCL ‘ a field of study centrally concerned with meaning and the practices of meaning making in the context of joint activity, and the ways in which these practices are mediated through designed artefacts’ (Koschmann 2002, p.18).

Participation p145 ‘ is not a taken for granted fact’

Guzdial & Truns (2000) approached participation as s design challenge.

Hewitt (2005, p575) gradual death of a thread is affected by a ‘single pass strategy’ p145 ‘referiing to users’ habitual routine of paying attention to new postings and neglecting postings read or posted earlier’ – prevents progressive knowledge building. KRO – summaries? As a design feature, rise above it cf Jackie’s style.

Thompson & Savenye (2007) and others p145 ‘students tend to adopt an eclectic and efficient approach’

Socio-affective dimensions in asynchronous learning: collaboration and social presence.

Collaborative cf cooperative learning. Collaborative learning tends to be less structured and student led whilst cooperative is usually based on specialisation of task which is designed into the activity therefore less opportunity for mutual engagement.

P146 ‘ in the content analysis of collaborative online learning, they found that there were generally fewer codes for challenge and explanation interaction’

Social presence

• Short et al, 1976, p 65 ( social psychologists) ‘degree of salience of the other person in the interactions and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships’
• Gunawardena & Zittle (1997, p9) in the context of communication that is mediated by a computer ‘ the degree which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’
• Rourke et al, 1999 ,p50 ‘ the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry’ instrument for measuring 3 categories; affective, interactive, cohesive.
• Tu and McIssac (2002, p131 a learner centred definition ‘ a measure of the feeling of community that a learner experiences in an online environment’
• Authors view, partially based on the literature review. P147 ‘ social presence as a learner’s psychological perception of other learners as well as of media capabilities’ KRO what about learner real life context?

Method

Participants:

student worked on a collaborative project throughout the semester and various CMC tools were available to facilitate students’ online collaboration. 3-5 particpants per group, 12 groups therefore groups who did opt for CMc and those that did not.

Instruments :

RQ1 CMC Questionnaire (Tu and McIssac, 2002) descriptive information regarding level of profiency, experience with CMC tools (email, threaded discussion, real-time chat).

Hours using CMC tools

RQ2 Interview (9 (16%) randomly selected) Open ended questions eg ;how did you group members collaborate online to complete the group project’. Thematic analysis & also content analysis for the two voluntarily participating groups using two coding schemes. For collaborative behaviour Curtis & Lawson(2001) – 5 categories planning, contributing, seeking input, technology, social interaction. For social presence used Rourke, 3 categories affective, interactive, & cohesive. Nb these coding schemes were modified for the purpose of this study ( no details given as to why). Two coders , used Holsti’s intercoder reliability & Cohen’s Kappa.

Results

• RQ1 How do groups decide to use CMC tools in the first place? Used self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews.

• No apparent relation between uptake & previous experience of CMC .

• 5/12 groups did not use the forums at all, postings varied from 1 – 128 in the other 7 groups.

• Themes ( 3 identified)

a. Prior/ initial experience of CMC

Successful prior or initial use of CMC , encouragement from members who have successful prior experience., voluntary use became the norm

Unsuccessful prior or intial use led to using other forms of communication ie email, face to face, phone. And these methods became the norm. note comment about feeling that other participants might be multitasking in online chat and therefore not applying full attention.

b. Perceived affordances

voluntary uptake – convenience of any time, any place, & access to archives

no uptake – delayed feedback & lack of immediate interaction for the more complex communications. (KRO ? where the emotional dimension may come in)

c. Interplay between the nature of the collaborative tasks and the perceived efficiency

students felt they could achieve more and quicker face to face when possible conflicts or miscommunications amongst group members were minimized. P152 quote in the first column , that tended to politeness more online therefore if disagreement preferred to meet face to face.

P152 ‘ complex picture. Data showed that the decisions involved the interplay among the nature of collaborative tasks, group dynamics and perceived affordances of CMC technology and efficiency , rather than individual characteristics such as proficiency levels and prior experience with communication tools.’

• RQ2 Once a group decision is made, how do group members participate in asynchronous discussion forums to complete collaborative learning tasks? Content analysis

Based on the 2/12 groups who decided to use online discussion forums to complete their group projects’

Participation patterns by individual group members

The individuals who posted the highest number of messages seemed to act as group leaders who tended to assign other members to work on set tasks and also by providing frequent feedback to other postings.

One other participant remained confused by her role.

Sustained discussion by groups across time

Similar proportions for each of the categories ( planning, contributing, seeking input, technology, social interaction) across both groups. ( KRO similarity to the Careers paper)

High frequencies of planning activities ( e.g. arranging meetings) etc. Low frequencies of challenging(CH code), explaining elaborating(EX) while advocating effort (EF) was not identified in the transcripts of either group. see fig 1 p 154. High instances of reporting what one had done.

Social presence - Similar patterns across both groups with cohesive responses being the highest 57.5 & 63.8% , (which does not match the findings from the careers conference).

Collaboration and social presence patterns over time ( using the 3 stages planning, production & completion as the anchor points)

P155 ‘ Group A showed a decrease in interactive and cohesive behaviours over time while the affective factor increased slightly. On the other hand, all the social presence factors in Group B increased as studebts in that group worked on the collaborative project’

Conclusions

• RQ1 How do groups decide to use CMC tools in the first place? Used self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews.

P157 ‘ the decision process is rather complex, involving the interplay of several factors, including the nature of the collaborative tasks, the perceived affordances of CMC tools and the perceived efficiency of communication methods. First and previous impressions also played a part’

• RQ2 Once a group decision is made, how do group members participate in asynchronous discussion forums to complete collaborative learning tasks? Content analysis

Lack of challenging and self-disclosing behaviours. P158 quotes other research that report low levels of critical behaviour patterns online. Also that high level cogniotive skills are rarely shown unless structured interventions are applied’

Frequency of social presence can eith increase or decereas over time, this fits with other research reports.

Haythornthwaite - relational opportunities in networks

Caroline Haythornethwaite

Learning relations and networks in web-based communities (2008)

Int. J. Web Based Communities, Vol. 4, 2, 140-158.

• based on social network analysis
• looks in depth at relations and classifies relational interactions in terms of ties
• comments on the variety of network when considered in terms of relational structure
• fairly sophisticated use of a range of method

Learning

P140 ‘ Learning is a social network relation: it is a transaction , an exchange between people as one teaches and another learns; it is a shared experience as colleagues explore a new area, define terms, and create common ground; and it a joint experience as students attend classes and lectures together, gaining a similar view of the subject and profession. Learning involves the transfer of information (KRO ability to circulate resources including papers online) from one person to another, but also feedback, questioning and dialogue as meaning is clarified and negotiated.’

Learning with others P151 ‘ the need to articulate knowledge and clarify intent via text may be particularly useful. The forced articulation not only provides a record of knowledge development but more importantly, enacts a continuous process of making tacit knowledge explicit.’

in order to survive there must be sustaining behaviour with a network p154 “learning networks are living entities, nurtured and perpetuated by involvement ‘

Focus of the paper - Social network basis of learning communities

Vocabulary: actors, relations, ties (e.g. tie strength - weak, latent, strong).

• Tie strength in the formation of learning networks.
• comparison of online & real ties.

Refs

· Social networks :Wasserman & Faust, 1994, Wellman & Berkowitz, 1997

· Social networks and community ( Wellman, 1999)

· Learning in groups and communities: Argote et al., 2001, Brown & Duguid, 1991; Koschmann, 1996: Wenger, 19980

· Online community ( Gackenbach,2006; Jones, 1995; Kiesler, 1997;, Preece, 2000; Wellman , 1997)

Social networks, learning networks

In learning networks, learning may stand as the only connector between two people, or it may be combined with friendship, social support, and more general advice. i.e. all different types of ties.

Actors and relations in learning networks

Actors - Roles and positions are important. P142 ‘SNA lets us discover roles that we may not know exist’ and ‘ what roles are important in a learning community’ and ‘what kind of roles turn up over and over again’

Relations – p143 ‘are differentiated by content i.e. what kind of resource is exchanged or shared, direction, strength (frequency, quantity and/or intensity)’ Types of relation – transfer of information, social, emotional (eg support).

Practice is an important component of learning p142 ‘ practice, many scholars view as an equally important part of what is learned, including such things as what methods are used, how experiments are constructed etc’ p144 ‘ aspects of learning relations include pooling of knowledge, construction of common meanings and the generation of new ideas and practices’

P144 ‘technologies and social practices, including learning practices, emerge in a co-evolutionary developmental process, each phase providing the starting point for the next evolutionary phase ( Andrews and Haythornthwaite, 2007: Hickman, 1992).’

P144 ‘ all communities build transactive memory about the capabilities of community members ( Monge and Contractor, 2003)’ KRO is that the only type of memory they build about others. Actually the author says later that it can also include relations that are quite unrelated to learning e.g. who to go to for emotional support.

Discovering learning relationships (methods – questionnaire, qualitative interview, discourse analysis, whole network analysis)

Questionnaires:

See (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998) for questionnaires ( 24 items about their interactions)

P145 ‘Factor analysis revealed 6 dimensions of work and social interaction that defined relations among members of the learning community. ‘ 2 for management, 2 about work products, 2 about socio-emotional interaction.

Discourse:

respondents asked what they learned from 5-8 closest co-workers.

9 learning relations

strong -exchange of factual knowledge, exchange of how to knowledge, learning about methodologies, joint work on research projects.

Less strong – learning about technology, professional socialisation, generation of new ideas,

weakest – working on project related administration.

Demonstrate ‘ the range and content of interactions’

Note about interdisciplinary groups the most necessary exchange is p146 ‘ joint articulation of difference ( Haythornthwiate, 2006a) ‘ collective knowledge about how to practice in diverse groups’

Relations based on social and /or emotional content:

For some groups social bonds are not necessary for work relationships.

-

other findings p147 ‘ by contrast, a series of longditudinal interviews revealed how internal, community orientated, social and emotional communications helped students come to terms with their anxiety and confusion as new online learners ( Haythronthwaite et al., 2000)’ for these other groups socio/emotional support was supoorted across a different network of actors when compared to work based interactions.

Another finding is that with strengthening ties comes the use of more media.

Conclusion

in order to survive there must be sustaining behaviour with a network p154 “learning networks are living entities, nurtured and perpetuated by involvement ‘

Consider the following conclusions in the context of the dialogue about the changing face of education ie that students will seek out there own personal learning opportunities on the web. Haythornthwaite has identified some things that need to be designed in so that a community can exist and therefore so that a learning community might be successful.

P154 ‘examining relations provides a way of finding out what matters to a particular group, providing understanding of the learning and community processes, enabling technical and social support for such processes.’

P154 ‘ only from a community can individuals gain social capital that resides in the network of members, and only in stable community can social capital be created that can support individuals who are dipping in to support individual goals. This tension between individual use and community benefit is not new, but is clearly seen when communities are thought of as networks, with social capital to be built and sustained at the network level.

Conole-Twining podcast

Conole-Twining podcast for H809 (2007)

Frameworks - Peter Twining

1. Achievement
2. Cognitive - impact on the individual in terms of how they think and the interaction i.e. focused at the micro level
3. software eg category such as drill & skill, role play etc
4. pedagogical e.g Squires, D., and McDougall, A. (1994) Choosing and Using Educational software: A Teachers' Guide, London, The Falmer Press in particular the Perspectives Interactions Paradigm where you look critically at the nature of the interaction around computer use. Not just at the machine but all the other activity that's related to the activity of the machine and they are looking at the relationship between teacher, the student and computer, in that context.
5. evolutionary - looking at progression and change in the way that ICT has been rolled out.

Learning theory perspectives : GC

Looking across learning theory perspectives, can we distil out the essences of learning? it comes down to quite simple things: reflection, experience, dialogue. What different frameworks or theories or perspectives give you is different lenses. So DL's Conversational Framework, which has been highly influential in HE, certainly very much emphasises the dialogic nature of learning. Its about tutor and student perspective. It isn't so good at the kind of wider contextual aspects, (like Activity theory) ie the relationship between the things and the rules and the community and the division of labour etc.

Carey - multimodal

Nov 2009

'kinaesthetically they do it by moving and positioning their bodies in relation to each other in particular ways at a particular time'

Q ' what are the cues for an interaction'

Carey - video seems to strip out emotion KRO ? the dynamic, or immersion . Carey identifies the importance of field notes for this reason, i.e. need some ethnography'

gaze at self versus gaze at others i

all embracing classroom culture ( KRO ? same as immersion)

Lever Lecture 1 Haythornethwaite web2 - learning

Caroline Haythornthwaite Web 2 & Learning

• pre internet - ICT automation, expertise required
• web 1.0 web presence, moderate expertise required, closed community
• web 2.0 participation, ? lower level of expertise required, open communities. Opportunity to be commentator, contributor, evaluator etc. ( technologies, wiki, digg, slashdoc)
• web 3.0 convergence ( semantic web , cross platform convergence)

KRO ? whether this claim for such different levels of expertise is justified. Also need to think from perspective of learner cf instructor/leader

Group decision support system - look into the literature on this, wikipedia entry

surveillance and sousveillance - persistent conversations and data mining. Anonymity and data mining.

Participatory culture

Henry Jenkins (2006) ' a transformation to a participatory culture may, in learning, be a transformation to an inquiry culture' ; 'beginning to seem like an academic culture in that knowledge is not certain.

sentinent analysis - attitudes expressed online, one of the ways in which data mining potential is embraced

participation

disability

Moser, I. (2006) ‘Disability and the promises of technology: Technology, subjectivity and embodiment within an order of the normal’. Information, Communication & Society, 9 (3), 373 – 395.

accessibility

Enabling Greater Accessibility

by dougclow

Live notes from IET Technical Coffee Morning – Robin Stenham on accessibility.

Accessibility is one of the things I particularly care about so it’s good to have this session.

Robin is Manager – Curriculum Access in Disabled Student Services. Two main areas of responsibility: single enquiry point for students (or their intermediaries) about the interface between their assistive technology and the OU’s products and services – particularly courses. Has a team, has backup from IET staff, but it’s literally one man plus half another one and half of his dog! The other area of responsibility is policy development, again working with IET and LTS, affect and effect policy. Wants to rebalance and embed accessibility in to the mainstream.

Things are changing quite quickly – announcements on Monday folded in to talk at the last minute.

He talked broadly about the issues around accessibility, and specifically for the OU, and then about the new focus on embedding accessibility across the OU, which promises a step-change in the way we manage making our products and services accessible to all.

Why accessibility?

Students’ ethical and legal rights. Fundamental part of OU mission!

Legal requirement is for ‘reasonable adjustment’, which has raised expectations.It’s a technical, pedagogical and service delivery issue. We need a whole-institution approach.

Also business imperative – exempt from ELQ consideration (any student with disabilities gets full funding), and getting it right helps recruitment and retention. Getting it right for disabled students helps other students too. (Access for all.)

It’s part of our own professional armament – keeping ahead of the game. It can also add value to research proposals (certainly has to mine!).

Changes afoot to put the OU in the lead internationally in terms of how it manages accessibility. Organisational dynamics key.

Disabled students at the OU

11,435 disabled students currently registered – about 6% of the student population. 25% of them get Disabled Student’s Allowance.

Fatigue/Pain 5k, Mobility/Physical and Mental Heath both about 3.5k, Manual Skills and Dyslexia about 2.5k, Other about 2k. Sight, Hearing, Personal care about 1k. Unseen about 1.5k. Autistic spectrum lower. Others and things I didn’t capture about 2k total.

Challenges for disabled students

May have difficulty with one or more of many activities. (Some anyone would expect (reading, writing) and some you might not – e.g. sustaining an activity, interacting with others. ) Need to think about how these activities are supported and make reasonable adjustments.

What counts as a reasonable adjustment needs to be a whole-institution consideration – not a retrofit by Disabled Student Services in responsive mode when students encounter problems.

Who’s responsible?

At the moment scattered – changes to University products and services (e.g. move to Moodle) is senior management. Teaching is course teams. Routes for progression – Programme teams/CAUs. Technical and media – the producers of the materials (LTS, and other units). Support for individuals is Student Services (ALs, Regional/Central Staff, Disabled Student Services). Examinations is Examinations and Assessments. And so on …

So support for embedding accessibility is scattered across many groups, including Disabled Student Services, Accessibility in Educational Media (AEM) team in IET, LTS, Regions, Equality & Diversity Office, and others.

We spend a lot of resource retrofitting materials – e.g. alternative format production, a small industry sending out PDFs, recording in digital format (and analogue, but that phasing out in February), Digital Talking Books – historically developed ReadOut and DREAM, but that being replaced by an international standard – DAISY – so we are producing many DAISY Digital Talking Books for distribution to students. Other things include transcripts, summer school activities, training and development for staff.

Student expectations, when they’re not met, lead to complaints – and there’s a system and organisation for dealing with those.

How charming to pillory a disabled man – article in the Times on 11 November by Melanie Reid. Issue about Gordon Brown’s handwritten letter to relative of soldier killed, contained ‘Why if the partially sighted can sue the OU for producing inaccessible material [...] then this constitutes a grave emergency’. Mr M – late 2007 – sued us in the County Court for failure to provide extensions to TMA deadlines and to provide materials in suitable format; we settled out of court.

Enabling Greater Accessibility

Last April, had a consultant in, led to a workshop – ‘Working together to make accessibility a reality’ – good things came out of this process review. Audience senior managers – Associate Deans, Programme Heads, etc. Sponsored by senior managers – Will Swann, Denise Kirkpatrick.

Had seven objectives to improve things for accessibility – doing better, but also documenting better, and being more visible and organised about it. Trying to step outside silos. That took a morning (!). Now translated to an Implementation Plan, with the ear of the senior managers – previous pushes to do this didn’t have that senior ownership and governance.

Objective to provide accurate and comprehensive information about reasonable adjustments – to students, enquirers, advisors, ALs and Disabled Student Allowance Assessors. Would be great improvement on the current long course descriptions, and would require getting things right upstream in the course production processes. Move away from cottage industries and bolt-ons.

Implementation Plan addresses responsibility. Josie Taylor (Director of IET) and Anne Howells (LTS boss) also bought in, via Denise Kirkpatrick, will also include Deans. Learning and Teaching and Quality, Strategy, Curriculum and Awards. Five sections – policy management and responsibility, process, staff skills, technology, review (plans, targets, reprioritisation).

Faculties will specify an Associate Dean to have special responsibility for accessibility, and will also nominate someone to be supported with training and guidance so they have the high-level skills and expertise too. IET will help assess the knowledge shortfall and help people get up to speed and stay that way. Martyn Cooper reckons it’s a minimum of 10% of someone’s time to track this stuff.

New Code of Practice relating to disabled students coming soon from the QAA – has precepts which institutions need to adhere to.

There is a huge amount of information and guidance – some up to date, some not. Routes in via IETAccessibility Primer and general public-facing info on OU website www.open.ac.uk/disability and /diversity

Very much a moving target – technology change very rapid. International standards too.

IET will be producing checklists to help at each stage – what to do, where to get help to do it. Part of IET’s input to Curriculum Management Guide, which is the key document used by Course Teams to make courses.

Also issue with AL-initiated materials, student-generated content (e.g. Elluminate sessions) – accessibility challenges. Some argue that these are additional to producing ‘graduateness’ – but graduate-ness includes encounters with peers, the whole learning experience – so students need to engage with the issues in creating an inclusive society. These should not be barriers for us or our students. If we can harness new technologies in an inclusive and accessible way, it’ll enhance employability for all students. Remote working skills, being inclusive, distributed environment – very transferable skills.

First review in Easter 2010.

What are the benefits?

1. Increased and sustainable recruitment and retention
2. Reduced costs and concomitant increased quality of course production, presentation and support (costs hard to define and quantify, though; may require seedcorn funding – but want cost-neutrality where possible)
3. Reduced costs and concomitant increased quality of complaint management because of an audit trail to be used in the event of DDA challenges (also reputational benefit indirectly)
4. Meeting our mission

Questions

Me: DAISY Digital Talking Books and structured content production.

Robin: Previously, did 1000 flowers bloom approach to technology. Didn’t have understanding of the impact of producing web resources, and implications of multiple stages. Now we have structured content (previously structured authoring) – a single source document (using Word with a fixed stylesheet) delivers a multiplicity of outputs: HTML pages on websites (or complete website), Word-rendition of that material, PDFs to send to printers and go to students. PDFs do help with digitisation and broadly-available content; but PDF still has horrendous accessibility issues. Also outputs MP3 files! And DAISY Digital Talking Books. Disabled Student Services moving on from analogue – we still send out courses on cassettes. 150 cassettes for a 60-point level 1 course! Students spend 20% of time on navigation rather than studying. Also replacing DREAM and ReadOUt with an international standard-based approach: DAISY digital talking books. Will show the advantages of having a digital talking ebook which provides enormous flexibility for non-disabled students to access course texts through the multiplicity of readers.

At the press of a button on Openlearn site – get a Word document, a PDF, a series of MP3s with coherent names, and a digital talking book. Unresolved areas are symbolic fonts and foreign languages, pagination. But we can do a multiplicity of alternative formats at a press of a button – for all students, not just students with declared disabilities.

Project almost finished, but reverberations around for a while.

Q1: Reasonability. To do your job, need to understand what reasonable adjustment means. Is that straight from legislation? Who decides?

Robin: Very interesting question. ‘Reasonable adjustment’ is right from the legislation, and we have to make them, but there’s no case law (yet). We have many best guesses about it. Robin thinks reasonable adjustment is a process, which is influenced by a number of things: the governance and management, international standards, cost, dialogue between student and adviser.

Martyn Cooper: Very pertinent question, highly problematic, has been since it came in. Law sets out the term, Best Practice Guides give some examples of what you have to think about. But everyone settles out of court (as we did) so no case law. And anyway probably wouldn’t transfer very well. General guidelines offered, course teams have prime responsibility. Currently an informal process in the OU. In the new plan, defining the responsibility. Proposal to have a panel in the university so where a course team or a developer decide something isn’t reasonable, they pass it to that panel for review and help. Perhaps your idea about how to meet the situation wasn’t reasonable, but there might be other ideas, so need to check. But some adjustments are in truth unreasonable.

Q1: Only barrier cost?

Martyn: No. If adjustment impairs the study of other students. Or if compromises academic quality. Always say, refer back to learning objectives, or to the assessment adjectives. Is there a reasonable way of achieving those – adjustment might give access to some material but not the learning. Sometimes might say ‘Ok, can’t do that bit, but can reach learning outcomes by going for the other parts’ – so long as the students know. At the moment they don’t get that level of information at course signup.

Q1: There is a legal concept of a reasonable person. Somewhat antiquated. He is a white able-bodied male who gets on the Clapham Omnibus!

Martyn: Disability legislation – back to 1985, 1996 when education came in to scope – so that point probably archaic.

Q1: No legal definition of reasonability, in practice.

Robin: Yes, indeed. We don’t have a coherent process to enable us to have a defendable position about whether our decisions are reasonable. As an institution, the criteria are laid out about academic standards, costs, impact on other students – our processes will enable us to define reasonability, but explicitly and documentation. E.g. from language courses – previously had academic outcomes around about speaking a language, now change to communicating in a language. Change enables e.g. students with hearing or speaking impairments to study.

Martyn: It’s not all doom or gloom! In every case in the last 12 years, usually leads to innovation and better quality for everyone. It’s not a terrible issue of dealing with nasty problems. It’s part of making really good students. So things like virtual microscope or virtual field trips meet the needs of students without disabilities so folded in to mainstream provision to great benefit. Also good news is that this implementation plan exists, with buy-in across the board, rather than being agitated for by the people directly concerned. If it achieves half of its aims it’ll be great.

Robin: Loads of examples where inclusivity improves the content of the course – design, HCI (and mobiles!). New maths & computing course – lots of accessibility review of the new tools, and different ways of assessing work and how groups can work together. Will make the course much richer by considering needs widely.

Jon: Should aim for course team to make a course passable by someone with particular challenge, or to be able to get a Pass 1 (top grade)? E.g. if skip inaccessible part of course, could make it hard to get top marks.

Robin: Raises question of clusters of individual needs. In one sense there’s no such thing as disabled students, there are students with a variety of needs. Structured content allows us to cater to students with a variety of preferences – and requirements – for media to study with. Help students become independent learners. It’s about diversity, and diversity in accessing media. So balance between individualisation and mass personalisation – in course content, learning outcomes, and media.

Martyn: Point raised is valid. Standard illustration: e.g. Arts course talking about development of perspective in Western Art, teaches by asking students to review a series of pictures. Can’t be accessible to students who can’t see – so don’t waste your effort producing endless course descriptions. Course Team then has decision – is there something else we can provide, or can they pass the course without doing that? Is an academic question, tied up with academic objectives.

Robin: Then make it explicit and clear. Students with disabilities not naturally litigious – it’s when they’re led to believe they can do something and then find out they can’t, because the course descriptions don’t help them know whether they can do it or not.

Q2 (visitor from China): In China, have 60m disabled people, but at university level have separate institutions for disabled students. Suggestions for our Chinese universities to be inclusive? Collaborative work?

Robin: Yes, sure! Primary and secondary education in UK has been around special schools for e.g. students who are blind, or who are deaf. But direction of policy here (and societal view), based on cost and inclusivity, is a move to integrate students with learning differences in to the mainstream. At university level, whole thrust of legislation is to create inclusive higher education.

Q2: As developing country, perhaps costs lower for separate institutions.

Martyn: Different perspectives on this globally. In UK, no specialist universities, but some rare specialist colleges. In the US, some universities have special focus on this (incl Rochester). But American model is that the expertise there gets rolled out to other universities as best practice. Different cultures, and huge diversity in this area across Europe. Philosophically in the UK the tendency is towards inclusion. Within the disability community views differ. Many think it’s a good thing, so long as needs are actually met – if not met, it can be a way of avoiding support.

Q3 (MCT course manager): Welcome this. Can be bewildering. Symbol fonts slightly tricky – can we raise that profile of symbolically-rich courses? Will there be particular strand looking at this?

Robin: Working with Science. Did a mystery shopper exercise, keeping a diary, did improvements based on that. Now looking at how we can make science accessible – and where we can’t, and what the difficult areas are. Enormous effort internationally on making symbolic language accessible, but no silver bullet. Tracking that very intently, we don’t know enough about it. Not part of the Implementation Plan but Disabled Student Services working on this. Pathfinder for other faculties too. Timescale – by end of July 2010, project complete, results analysed by Faculty.

Martyn: Every faculty has its own particular challenges – hence need for each Faculty to have a specialist on accessibility in their area.

Robin: Also e.g. deaf students studying music. Similar challenge.

Q4: Where does the increased use of existing, third-party material (online resources, databases, etc) leave us with regards to reasonable adjustments?

Robin: Have done things here. Mary Taylor developed guidelines for referring people to documents and websites – quick and dirty ways to put up flags for further analysis by experts. Having problems with this now. Business school course, co-produced reader – some articles were pictures!, so inaccessible. Had to do fixes. Rights have to be involved here. The simple way of dealing with it is to re-key, but that’s a cost. Or advanced scanning technology for the student themselves. It’s a minefield. Like student-generated content. We have to engage with this. Need to have processes in place, and know the basis on which we’re doing that, and communicate that.

Q4: Embedded in Implementation Plan?

Robin: Yes.

Q5: ELQ exemption – self-declared students?

Robin: Not sure. Definitely students on DSA. Don’t know about self-declaration, though.

Martyn: There is a constraint about the amount of study within an annual period.

–
This work by Doug Clow is copyright but licenced under a Creative Commons BY Licence.
No further permission needed to reuse/remix (with attribution), but it’s nice to be notified if you do use it.