the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, where she worked with Ph.D. ...... Among the research questions that this study seeks to answer are: 1) What are the ... Promising the best of both worlds, offering some of the convenience of online ..... This sub-section aims at reviewing selected topics related to interaction, which.
A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR BRINGING MULTIMODALITY AND AFFORDANCES TO DESIGN OF TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
BY HELOISA TAVARES DE MOURA
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Design in the Graduate College of the Illinois Institute of Technology
Approved _________________________ Adviser _________________________ Co-Adviser Chicago, Illinois May 2008
© Copyright by HELOISA MOURA May 2008
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My thesis research has come to a conclusion. It has been a challenging period in my life, and especially in my husband and son‟s lives, which were all the time here with me in Chicago in this awesome life growth adventure. I would never make it by myself. And in life, actually, we never make anything by ourselves: it is always a collective process and effort. The idea of individuality, to me, is an illusion, since our existence is multilayered, and each layer is intertwined with the layers of others and our connected contexts, embracing atoms, physical spaces, history, culture, social dynamics, communication and learning processes, beliefs, emotions, vibrational fields and human experience of reality. By breathing, interacting and simply existing in the world of perceivable matter and thoughts, we connect to one another and become collective. So, it is an immense pleasure to acknowledge and thank all the people and also the funding agency that made this thesis possible. So, I would like to start by thanking my family. I cannot thank enough my husband, Epitácio José Brunet Paes, and son, Hugo Tavares de Moura Brunet Paes, for making this doctoral journey possible. Thanks for all the generosity, love, patience and companionship. My gratitude to my mother, Floricéa Tavares de Moura, my sister, Cláudia Tavares de Moura, my brother and sister-in-law, Márcio Tavares de Moura and Maria Cecília Rangel de Moura, my grand-mother Laura Tavares França, and to all my family – aunties, brother in law, nieces, nephews and cousins – and friends for all their support and for being who they are. While I was conducting this research, my father, José Ignácio Bastos de Moura, died unexpectedly: it broke my heart having him live so soon without saying good-bye. I dedicate this thesis to him. During the time I was writing my dissertation, I had a change in advisor. My earlier primary Ph.D. advisor, Professor Sharon Helmer Poggenpohl, moved to the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and became my secondary advisor. On this occasion, a new professor joined the Institute of Design, Professor Judith Gregory, Ph.D., a social scientist coming from the University of Oslo, where she worked with Master‟s students and Ph.D. candidates at the research group of the Department of Informatics, and from the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, where she worked with Ph.D. candidates at the Institute of Form, Theory and History. It is difficult to overstate my gratitude to my current primary Ph.D. advisor, Professor Judith Gregory, Ph.D., who was always encouraging, supportive and kept reminding me to ground my research on actual learner behavior, instead of flying into abstractions. My research focused more its direction under her guidance, building up from the data collected. Most of all, she is an amazingly generous and positive human being. It is equally difficult to express my appreciation to my secondary Ph.D. advisor, Professor Sharon Helmer Poggenpohl. Her brilliant mind, experience and focus helped me getting started and keeping on target. With her amazing time management skills, she pushed me to get things done. Her editorial skills helped my thesis to become more readable.
iii
Thanks to my external advisor, Professor Susan Feinberg, Ph.D., who taught me classes at the Communication Department, and gave me plenty advice and support throughout my thesis-writing process. Thanks to Professor Dale Fahnstrom for being in my thesis committee, and for all the valuable support throughout the thesis writing process and feedback on my research. Thanks also to Professor Greg Prygrocki, who provided me materials to read, and gave me encouragement on my work. Since the summer of 2006, these two amazingly generous human beings have worked with me on a project funded by MacArthur Foundation, called ThinkeringSpaces (www.ThinkeringSpaces.org). The ideas discussed on that project influenced tremendously my dissertation. I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support, and friendship from both. Special thanks to Professor Frank Parker, from the Humanities Department, who accepted to read my work at an earlier stage, and who gave me inestimable advice in the thesis preparation process. Thanks to Professor Chris Conley, who was part of my initial research committee, for his guidance and support. I also would like to thank all my instructors at the Institute of Design, and at the Technical Communication Graduate Program, especially Keiichi Sato, Vijay Kumar, and Katherine Riley. Thanks to all other Ph.D. students who shared ideas with me during this period, especially Eric Swanson, who reviewed and proof read part of my work, and Young Ae Hahn, Jung-Min Choi, Elva Yadira Ornelas, Jihyun Sun, and Fang Wu Tung, who gave me valuable feedback during my practice presentations. Also thanks to all graduate students who took part in my research, as well as their instructors who allowed me in their classrooms. The present work was realized with the support of CNPq, an entity from the Brazilian Government that aims at the scientific and technological development. Thanks to my country for encouraging and supporting research in the field of Design. Without financial support, this journey would not be possible. Many thanks to the administrative and scientific staff from CNPq with whom I interacted throughout this period, including Kristiane Holanda, Eli Silva, Mônica Oliveira, Flávia Beatriz Krohn, Gustavo Lacombe, Alessandro Pereira, Rosângela Nunes, José Airton de Souza, Elson Lima and Viviane Caixeta.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
.......................................................................................
iii
LIST OF TABLES
...................................................................................................
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
.................................................................................................
xii
ABSTRACT
............................................................................................................. xxii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................
1
1.1 Background ................................................................................. 1.2 Research Focus ........................................................................... 1.3 Outline of the Dissertation ..........................................................
3 11 11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................
14
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
Interaction ................................................................................... Communication........................................................................... Multimodality ............................................................................. Learning ...................................................................................... Learning Environments............................................................... Information and Communication Technologies ......................... User-Centered Design .................................................................
14 19 36 60 87 93 97
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AND METHODOLOGY ................ 100 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
Research Objectives and Rationale ............................................. Research Hypotheses .................................................................. Research Questions ..................................................................... Philosophical Assumptions ......................................................... Research Approach ..................................................................... Procedures of Research and User Groups................................... Analysis Framework and Units of Analysis ...............................
v
101 102 102 102 104 104 110
4. RESEARCH ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 114 4.1 Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design .................................................. 4.2 Spatial Design, Use of Space and Higher/Intermediate/Lower Level Actions within Traditional and Online Classrooms .......... 4.3 Available Media, Modes and Technology and Their Use within Traditional and Online Classrooms ................................. 4.4 Multimodality and Learning Needs and Abilities within Traditional and Online Classrooms ............................................ 4.5 Purposes, Desires and Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments ..............................................................................
118 136 171 194 214
5. RESEARCH CROSS ANALYSIS .......................................................... 253 5.1 Available Technology, Pedagogical and Spatial Design, Affordances and Implications for Learning ................................ 254 6. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS ...................................................................... 293 6.1 Models for Describing Affordances ........................................... 6.2 Evolving Framework for Analyzing Multimodality ................... 6.3 Principles and Design Criteria for Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments............................................................... 6.4 Scenario of a Desirable Future Technology-Enhanced Learning Environment ................................................................ 6.5 Methodological Framework for Designing TechnologyEnhanced Learning Environments ..............................................
294 304 307 316 319
7. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION...................................................... 325 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6
Summary and Discussion............................................................ Revisiting the Hypotheses and Research Questions ................... Contributions of the Study .......................................................... Limitations of the Study ............................................................. Emerging Questions .................................................................... Future Research ..........................................................................
327 345 348 351 352 352
APPENDIX A. Field Research Open-Ended Interview Data and Analysis ...................... 354 B. Main Video Ethnography Data and Analysis .......................................... 360 C. Complementary Video Ethnography Data and Analysis ........................ 377 BIBLIOGRAPHY
.................................................................................................... 435 vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Definition of Learning Styles Related Terms ................................................
2.
Identification of the Research Sets of Data.................................................... 116
3.
Purposes and Actions of Online Students ...................................................... 150
4.
Computer Science Traditional Classrooms Use of Space.............................. 155
5.
Computer Science Online Classrooms Use of Space .................................... 156
6.
Computer Science Traditional Classrooms Physical Context, Actions and Missed Opportunities .............................................................................. 158
7.
Computer Science Virtual and Online Classroom Physical Contexts, Actions and Missed Opportunities ................................................................. 160
8.
Design Lecture Classrooms Use of Space ..................................................... 165
9.
Design Hands-On Classrooms Use of Space ................................................. 166
10.
T1 and T3 Actions and Missed Opportunities ............................................... 169
11.
Design Lecture Classroom Physical Context, Actions and Missed Opportunities.................................................................................................. 170
12.
Student S2 and Computer Science Traditional Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects ............ 173
13.
Student S3 and Computer Science Traditional Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects ............ 174
14.
Student T2 and Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects ............................ 178
15.
Student T5 and Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects ............................ 180
16.
Student T7 and Design Lecture Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects ............................ 184
17.
Student T9 and Design Lecture Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects ............................ 185 vii
67
18.
Student S5 and Computer Science Online Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects ............ 188
19.
Student S6 and Computer Science Online Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects ............ 189
20.
Archival Material of Manufacturing Technology Online Course at the Target University ........................................................................................... 191
21.
Students Views of Learning within the Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms or Combined Groups 1 and 4 ................... 215
22.
Students Views of Learning within the Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop or Group 2 .................................................................................... 216
23.
Students Views of Learning within the Design Lecture Traditional Classroom or Group 3 .................................................................................... 217
24.
Students Views of Learning within the Field Research Graduate Classrooms from Different Academic Departments or Group 5 ................... 217
25.
Students Memorable Learning Experiences within the Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group 5 ........ 219
26.
Students Learning Profile and Style Awareness within the Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms, or Combined Groups 1 & 4 .................................................................................................. 221
27.
Students Learning Profile and Style Awareness within the Design Hands-On Workshop or Group 2 ................................................................... 221
28.
Students Learning Profile and Style Awareness within the Design Lecture Graduate Classroom or Group 3 .................................................................... 222
29.
Students Learning Profile and Style Awareness within the Field Research Graduate Classrooms from Different Academic Departments or Group 5 .... 223
30.
Students Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning within the Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms or Combined Groups 1 & 4 ........................................................ 227
31.
Students Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning within the Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom or Group 2 .. 228
viii
32.
Students Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning within the Design Lecture Graduate Classroom or Group 3 ...... 229
33.
Students Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning within the Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group 5 ............................................................... 230
34.
Students Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Pedagogical Design within the Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms or Combined Groups 1 & 4 ........................................................ 231
35.
Students Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Pedagogical Design within the Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop of Group 2 ...................... 232
36.
Students Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Pedagogical Design within the Design Lecture Graduate Workshop of Group 3 .......................... 235
37.
Students Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Pedagogical Design within the Field Research Interview with Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group 5 ................................................ 237
38.
Students Views of Traditional and Online Classrooms within the Computer Science Traditional Graduate Classroom...................................... 240
39.
Students Views of Traditional and Online Classrooms within the Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group 5 .......................................................................................................... 241
40.
Students Views of Traditional and Online Classrooms within the Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop or Group 2 ................................................... 242
41.
Students Views of Special Instructors within the Design Lecture Graduate Classroom or Group 3 .................................................................................... 243
42.
Students Views of Special Instructors within the Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group 5 ........................ 244
43.
Students Perceptions of the Future of Learning within the Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classroom or Combined Groups 1 & 4 ............................................................................................................. 246
44.
Students Perceptions of the Future of Learning within the Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop or Group 2 .................................................. 247
45.
Students Perceptions of the Future of Learning within the Design Lecture Graduate Classroom or Group 3 ...................................................... 248 ix
46.
Students Perceptions of the Future of Learning within the Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group 5 ......................................................................................................... 250
47.
Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Traditional and Online Instructors Use of Media, Modes and Technology .................................................................................. 269
48.
Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Traditional and Online Students Use of Media, Modes and Technology .................................................................................. 270
49.
Sample List of Desirable Affordances of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments ................................................................................................. 302
50.
Sample List of Desirable Affordances of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments ................................................................................................. 303
51.
Sample Recommendations for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments ................................................................................................. 314
52.
One-Way Delivery of Information Cycle of Learning, Codes and Relation with Sensorial Modes of Interaction .............................................................. 339
53.
Two-Way Narrative Construction Cycle of Learning, Codes and Relation with Sensorial Modes of Interaction .............................................................. 340
54.
Hands-On Practice Cycle of Learning, Codes and Relation with Sensorial Modes of Interaction ...................................................................................... 341
55.
Feedback on Performance Cycle of Learning, Codes and Relation with Sensorial Modes of Interaction ...................................................................... 342
A.1 F1 to F6 Open-Ended Interview ................................................................... 356 B.1 Student S1 Traditional Classroom Context, Instance 1 – Taking Notes without Looking ............................................................................................. 365 B.2 Student S1 and Traditional Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Materials and Objects .................................................................................... 369 B.3 Student S1 Modes of Interaction within Online Cycles of Learning, Instance 2 ....................................................................................................... 371 B.4 Student S1 Online Classroom Context, Instance 2 – Falling Asleep in the Online Class ................................................................................................... 372
x
B.5 Student S1 and Online Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Materials and Objects .................................................................................... 375 B.6 Student S1 Interview ...................................................................................... 375 C.1 Student T4 Interview...................................................................................... 432
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
Transferal of Information and Interaction......................................................
15
2.
Transferal of Information and Communication .............................................
21
3.
Verbal and Non-Verbal Codes .......................................................................
41
4.
Use of Time....................................................................................................
46
5.
Instructor‟s Use of Space ...............................................................................
47
6.
Students‟ Use of Space ..................................................................................
48
7.
Interaction between the Instructor and One of the Students from Team A, After the Group Presentation ........................................................................
49
8.
Sample Multimodal Analysis A .....................................................................
51
9.
Sample Multimodal Analysis B .....................................................................
52
10.
Sample Multimodal Analysis C .....................................................................
52
11.
Sample Multimodal Analysis D .....................................................................
53
12.
Sample Multimodal Analysis E .....................................................................
53
13.
Modes of Communication ............................................................................
55
14.
Human-Centered View of Multimodal Interaction ........................................
56
15.
Elements Involved in a Multimodal Interface ...............................................
59
16.
Definition of the Main Categories Related to Learning Styles ......................
68
17.
Learning Styles Subcategories Explained, Sensorial Modalities ...................
69
18.
Learning Styles Subcategories Explained, Cognitive Styles .........................
70
19.
Learning Styles Subcategories Explained, Personality Types .......................
71
20.
Learning Styles Subcategories Explained, Environmental Preferences ........
71
21.
Formula for the Whole-Class Teaching .........................................................
73
xii
22.
Examples of Physical Affordances for Learning and Definitions ................
85
23.
Examples of Cognitive Affordances for Learning and Definitions ..............
86
24.
Examples of Sensorial Affordances for Learning and Definitions ...............
86
25.
Examples of Functional Affordances for Learning and Definitions .............
87
26.
Virtual Learning Environments Features .......................................................
90
27.
Evaluating Virtual Learning Environments Using the Conversational Model ............................................................................................................
91
28.
Technology Affordances Map .......................................................................
96
29.
General Procedures of Research .................................................................... 105
30.
Research Protocols ........................................................................................ 107
31.
Main Video Ethnography............................................................................... 108
32.
Methodological Framework for Analysis of Multimodal Interaction ............ 109
33.
Research Procedures Explained ..................................................................... 112
34.
S1 and S2 Computer Science Traditional Graduate Classrooms Use of Time and Learning Cycles ............................................................................. 125
35.
T6 and T11 Design Lecture Classroom Use of Time and Learning Cycles .. 126
36.
S3 and S6 Computer Science Online Classrooms Use of Time and Learning Cycles............................................................................................................. 128
37.
T4 and T5 Design Hands-On Workshop Use of Time and Learning Cycles 131
38.
Auditorium Space within Target University .................................................. 138
39.
Sample Pictures of Five Space Categories within Target University ............ 139
40.
Sample Pictures of Two Space Categories within Target University ............ 140
41.
Online Learning Spaces within Target University, Screen Grabs 1 & 2 ....... 144
42.
Online Learning Spaces within Target University, Screen Grabs 3 & 4 ....... 145
xiii
43.
Online Learning Spaces within Target University, Screen Grabs 5 & 6 ....... 146
44.
Online Learning Spaces within Target University, Screen Grab 7 ................ 147
45.
Students S2, S5 and S8, and Instructors Traditional Class Layout and Position within Space ..................................................................................... 153
46.
Students S1, S4 and S7, and Instructors Traditional Class Layout and Position within Space ..................................................................................... 153
47.
Students T2 and T4 Traditional Design Classrooms ..................................... 162
48.
Students T7 and T10 Traditional Design Classrooms ................................... 162
49.
Instance One of Student S2 Traditional Modes of Interaction within Traditional Cycles of Learning ...................................................................... 197
50.
Instance One of Student S3 Traditional Modes of Interaction within Traditional Cycles of Learning ...................................................................... 198
51.
Student T6 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning, Instance One . 200
52.
Student T7 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning, Instance One . 202
53.
Student S1 Modes of Interaction within Online Cycles of Learning, Instance One................................................................................................... 203
54.
Student S7 Modes of Interaction within Online Cycles of Learning, Instance One................................................................................................... 204
55.
Student T1 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning ........................ 207
56.
Student T1 Instance 1 Multimodal Communication Representation ............. 208
57.
Student T2 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning ........................ 209
58.
Student T2 Instance 2 Multimodal Communication Representation ............. 210
59.
Visual Representation of Students F1-F4 Spatial Preferences ...................... 237
60.
Visual Representation of Students F5-F8 Spatial Preferences ...................... 238
61.
Visual Representation of Students F9-F11 Spatial Preferences .................... 238
62.
Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time and Learning Cycles ............................................................................................. 259 xiv
63.
Student and Instructor Use of Space and Higher/Intermediate/Lower Level Actions within Groups 1 and 2 Traditional and Online Classrooms ............. 263
64.
Student and Instructor Use of Space and Higher and Intermediate Level Actions within Groups 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms ............. 264
65.
Groups 1 and 2 Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design ..................................................................... 274
66.
Groups 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design ..................................................................... 275
67.
Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs, Views of Learning.......................................................................................... 278
68.
Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs, Memorable Learning Experiences ................................................................. 279
69.
Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs, Learning Profile and Style Awareness ........................................................... 280
70.
Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs Interaction and Communication .................................................................... 281
71.
Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs, Pedagogical Design ........................................................................................ 282
72.
Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs, Space and Learning .................................................................................................. 283
73.
Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs, Traditional Versus Online Classrooms .......................................................... 283
74.
Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs, Special Instructors ...................................................................................................... 284
xv
75.
Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs, Perceptions of the Future of Learning ........................................................... 285
76.
Summary Research Findings and Implications 1........................................... 289
77.
Summary Research Findings and Implications 2........................................... 290
78.
Basic Model for Describing Affordances ...................................................... 297
79.
Simplified Model for Describing Affordances .............................................. 298
80.
Relational Model for Describing Affordances ............................................... 300
81.
Sample Affordance Description 1, Relation Model ....................................... 300
82.
Sample Affordance Description 2, Relational Model .................................... 301
83.
Extended Model for Describing Affordances ................................................ 302
84.
Multimodal Analysis Framework Summary .................................................. 306
85.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Multi-Cyclic Pedagogy Principle .......................................... 308
86.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Multiple Modes of Interaction Principle ............................... 309
87.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Managed Communication Principle ...................................... 310
88.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Expanded Social Relationships Principle .............................. 310
89.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Supported Emotional Expression .......................................... 311
90.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Supportive Technologies Principle........................................ 312
91.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Multi-Functional Space Principle .......................................... 313
92.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Continued Teacher Training Principle .................................. 313
xvi
93.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Oriented Learners Principle ................................................... 314
94.
Sample Scenario............................................................................................. 317
95.
Methodological Framework for Capturing Practice, Analyzing in Terms of Multimodality, Describing in Terms of Affordances, and Translating into Design Criteria ........................................................................................ 322
96.
In Situ Observation Model ............................................................................. 323
97.
Time and Learning Cycle Analysis Model .................................................... 323
98.
Space and Action Analysis Model ................................................................. 323
99.
Technology and Interaction Analysis Model ................................................. 324
100. Multimodality and Learning Analysis Model ................................................ 324 101. Affordances Description Model ..................................................................... 325 102. Affordance-Criteria Translation Model ......................................................... 325 103. Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms, Pedagogical Approach ........................................................................................................ 337 104. Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms, Opportunities for Motor, Auditory and Visual Engagement ................................................ 337 105. Codes and Modes of Representation and Relation with Sensorial Modalities and Sensorial Modes of Interaction ............................................................... 338 106. Computer Science and Design Classroom Analysis – Types of Knowledge, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Approach ................................................. 343 107. Computer Science and Design Classroom Analysis – Students Modes of Representation, Instructor Technology, Space Category and Supported Modalities ...................................................................................................... 344 108. Summary Thesis Contributions 1................................................................... 350 109. Summary Thesis Contributions 2................................................................... 351 B.1 Student S1 Demographics ............................................................................. 362 B.2 Student S1 Traditional Classroom Layout ..................................................... 363 xvii
B.3 S1‟s Traditional Class Use of Time ............................................................... 364 B.4 Student S1 Modes of Interaction within Traditional Classroom Cycles of Learning, Instance 1 ....................................................................................... 370 B.5 Student S1 Online Classroom Layout ............................................................ 371 C.1 Student T4 Demographics.............................................................................. 379 C.2 Student T4 Classroom Layout ....................................................................... 380 C.3 Use of Time within T4‟s Classroom .............................................................. 380 C.4 Student T4 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning ........................ 381 C.5 Student T4 During Preparation to Group Work, Meat Hunting .................... 382 C.6 Student T4 During Preparation to Group Work, A .......................................... 383 C.7 Student T4 During Preparation to Group Work, B ........................................ 384 C.8 Student T4 During Preparation to Group Work, C ........................................ 385 C.9 Student T4 During Preparation to Group Work, D ........................................ 386 C.10 Student T4 Instance 1 Multimodal Communication Representation ............. 387 C.11 Student T4 During Group Work .................................................................... 388 C.12 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions, A ... 389 C.13 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions, B ... 390 C.14 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions, C ... 391 C.15 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions, D ... 392 C.16 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions, E ... 393 C.17 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions, F.... 394 C.18 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions, G ... 395 C.19 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions, H ... 396
xviii
C.20 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions, I .... 397 C.21 Day 4, In Class Group Work Assignment ..................................................... 398 C.22 Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design and Context Instructions ........ 399 C.23 T4 During One-Way Delivery of Information, Attention Spam and Body Movement ...................................................................................................... 400 C.24 Student T4 During Group Work – Decision Making and Note Taking, A .... 401 C.25 Student T4 During Group Work – Decision Making and Note Taking, B .... 402 C.26 Student T4 During Group Work – Decision Making and Note Taking, C .... 403 C.27 Student T4 During Group Work – Decision Making and Note Taking, D .... 404 C.28 Student T4 Instance 3 Multimodal Communication Representation ............. 405 C.29 Student T4 Group (G) Work .......................................................................... 406 C.30 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, A .............................................................................................. 407 C.31 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, B ............................................................................................... 408 C.32 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, C ............................................................................................... 409 C.33 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, D .............................................................................................. 410 C.34 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, E ............................................................................................... 411 C.35 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, F ............................................................................................... 412 C.36 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, G .............................................................................................. 413 C.37 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, H .............................................................................................. 414
xix
C.38 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, I ................................................................................................ 415 C.39 Student T4 Group (G) Work – Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, J ................................................................................................ 416 C.40 Student T4 Instance 4 Multimodal Communication Representation ............. 417 C.41 Student T4 Group Presentation (E), Day 4, Verbal Communication Transcription .................................................................................................. 418 C.42 Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, A ..................................................... 419 C.43 Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, B...................................................... 420 C.44 Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, C...................................................... 421 C.45 Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, D ..................................................... 422 C.46 Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, E ...................................................... 423 C.47 Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, F ...................................................... 424 C.48 Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, G ..................................................... 425 C.49 Student T4 Instance 5 Multimodal Communication Representation ............. 426 C.50 Student T4 Cycles of Learning, One-Day Delivery of Information .............. 427 C.51 Student T4 Cycles of Learning, Hands-On Practice ...................................... 427 C.52 Student T4 Cycles of Learning, Two-Way Narrative Construction .............. 427 C.53 Student T4 Cycles of Learning, Feedback on Performance .......................... 427 C.54 Instructor‟s Use of Space ............................................................................... 428 C.55 Student T4‟s Use of Space ............................................................................. 428 C.56 Groups A & B Competition and Presentation, Day 4, Use of Space Suring Presentation ........................................................................................ 429 C.57 Groups C & D, Day Competition and Presentation, Day 4, Use of Space During Presentation ....................................................................................... 429
xx
C.58 Groups E, F & G, Day Competition and Presentation, Day 4, Use of Space During Presentation ....................................................................................... 430 C.59 Student T4 and Instructor Relation with Media, Materials and Objects ........ 431
xxi
ABSTRACT
Human interactions are multimodal in nature. From simple to complex forms of transferal of information, human beings draw on a multiplicity of communicative modes, such as facial expression, gaze, gestures, body posture, speech, writing and proxemics, to convey meaning and make sense of everyday experiences. Similarly, the learning process, within classrooms with different ranges of use of technology, is shaped, intentionally or not, by learners‟ perceptions of what is being multimodally communicated to them and limited by the affordances of their context. This study takes a user-centered approach towards building a methodological framework for designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments that can enable: capturing learning practice and learners‟ behavior in rich multimodal expression, and translating them in ways that are informative for the design of innovative environments. The overall research design employs a qualitative approach. The research questions this study seeks to answer are: 1) What are the learners‟ purposes, unacknowledged needs, abilities and multiples modes of interaction within Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments? 2) How are learners‟ purposes, needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction accommodated or not within Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments? 3) What are the existent perceptible and acted-upon affordances of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments for communication and learning? 4) How can the perceptible affordances be expanded to match learners‟ needs, and how can they become more easily acted-upon? 5) What well known and state-of-the-art technologies can add learning or communicative value to learning environments?
xxii
The research looks at graduate students, mainly Computer Science and Design, within classrooms making use of a broad range of technology, from more traditional to fully online environments. The research methods include: a) exploratory semi-structured interviews; b) video-ethnographic research with follow-up interviews; and c) documentary analysis of archival material. Altogether these comprise 28 interviews and about 85 hours of video documentation contrasting traditional and online learning. The resulting methodological framework includes seven steps: 1) in situ observation, 2) time and learning cycle analysis, 3) use of space and action analysis, 4) use of technology analysis, 5) multimodality and learning analysis, 6) pedagogical, technological and spatial affordances description, and 7) affordance-criteria translation.
xxiii
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The personal computer revolution and developments of telecommunication have increasingly allowed the integration of new technologies into daily life, influencing not only social relations and work organization, but also creating new demands concerning education. Within learning environments, technologies have the potential to be used in rich variety of ways to support learning, and more and more, and in different ranges, they have become a presence within classrooms. However, examples of authentically innovative forms of learning that maximize the potential affordances (Gibson, 1986; Salomon, 1993) that new technologies appear to offer are still rare. In reality, “most use of new technologies seems to offer more of the same, mirroring of existing practice in the new medium rather than exploiting new opportunities and creating new experiences” (Conole, 2007, p. 2). But a current issue in designing new technologies and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments that can support learning is: “how can we gather and represent practice (and in particular innovative practice)?” - Conole (2007). According to Boyle and Cook (2004), empirical observations of learning are what is required in the evolution of new frameworks, tools and systems to support, amongst others, systems designers and developers as they envisage new innovative tools to support learning. This research seeks to address the particular issue of capturing learning practice in rich multimodal expression and translating it in ways that can be informative to the design of TechnologyEnhanced Learning Environments.
2 In order to build a methodological framework that can help representing learning practices and learners‟ behaviors in rich multimodal expression and guide the design process, it takes a user-centered approach and looks at learners in situ within learning environments with different ranges of use of technology, mainly within Computer Science and Design graduate programs. By deeply examining learners‟ modes of interaction, unacknowledged needs, purposes and abilities, while they interact within learning contexts mediated by technology, it develops a structure of analysis that leads to the description of the pedagogical, technological and spatial affordances and criteria for designing innovative Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, as well as for assessing and improving the design of existing spaces. At the core of the analysis process that is part of the methodological framework is: the attempt to better understand learners and their perceptions of the affordances of the pedagogical design, available technology and learning space. For that purpose, the research turns a multimodal lens on the analysis of the social interaction that occurs around learning activities and contexts, based on the findings of Jewitt (2005), Bourne and Jewitt (2003), and Jewitt, Kress, Ogborn and Tsatsarelis (2001a), who indicate that it facilitates and extends the understanding of the learning that is taking place and the central role of action in it. Among the research questions that this study seeks to answer are: 1) What are the learners‟ purposes, unacknowledged needs, abilities and multiples modes of interaction within Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments? 2) How are learners‟ purposes, needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction accommodated or not within Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments? 3) What are the existent perceptible and
3 acted-upon
affordances
of
Technology-Enhanced
Learning
Environments
for
communication and learning? 4) How can the perceptible affordances be expanded to match learners‟ needs, and how can they become more easily acted-upon? 5) What well known and state-of-the-art technologies can add learning or communicative value to learning environments? The present study, in this way, focus on building and describing a process that can guide the design practice and not on making specific recommendations regarding the design of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, although, through the process of presenting the framework, observed behaviors are linked to principles and design criteria. This introduction intends to give an overview of the research domain and structure of the study and it is subdivided into three parts – 1.1) Background, 1.2) Research Focus, and 1.3) Outline of the Dissertation. The next sub-section of the present introduction sets the context of the research.
1.1
Background
This sub-section gives an overview of the research domain and it is subdivided into two parts – 1.1.1) Learning, Learning Environments and the Future of Education, and 1.1.2) Affordances, Multimodality and the Design of Technology-Enhanced Environments for Learning. 1.1.1
Learning, Learning Environments and the Future of Education. Learning is a
social process interwoven with multimodal interaction, where meaning is constructed actively (Dewey, 1916) and iteratively through interactions with the environment or
4 particular context (Vygotsky, 1978; Lave & Wenger, 1991). According to Brown (2001), learning occurs as a response to a social framework that fosters learning; and it can take place whenever and wherever the individual is receptive (King, Young, DrivereRichmond and Schrader, 2001). Within formal education, learning is supported by a wide assortment of spaces, from physical to virtual. Currently, a variety of learning environments can be found, from traditional to online. And the growing presence of technology across all the different types makes the line that separates these learning spaces fuzzier and fuzzier. In traditional classrooms, for instance, students and teacher meet at a specified time on a physical learning environment, usually with desks and white boards, and many times with computers, Internet access and multimedia projectors, supporting mainly face-to-face (FtF) interaction. The preference of many students for this model is related to the opportunities it brings for human interaction and friendships that expand beyond the classroom. In web-enhanced classrooms, most of the instruction occurs in the physical classroom and the web enhancement supplements FtF instruction, such as posting the course syllabus and weekly assignment online, by the teacher, to enhance student communication between home and school. In online classrooms all the instruction takes place in the virtual world, either synchronously or asynchronously, accessed electronically and sometimes also through mobile platforms. In hybrid classrooms, also known as blended learning environments, significant portions of the course content and learning interaction take place online, but they also require students to meet for FtF classes. Promising the best of both worlds, offering some of the convenience of online courses without the complete loss of FtF contact, blended learning is often specifically
5 related to the provision or use of resources which combine e-learning (electronic) or mlearning (mobile) with other educational resources. In Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments or TELE (Hinton, Gonzalez, Tedder, Karandikar, Behl, Smith, Wilbanks, Humphrey, Gordon and Lightner, 2000), technology is used to enhance and enrich the learning process in a variety of ways and ranges. The definition of TELE is often associated to spaces that require, for instance, both hands-on and technology interaction, and customization of lesson plans and activities. In the point of view of this research, all the different learning environments that make some use of technology, from traditional classrooms with little use of technology to fully online environments, are variations of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments with a difference in range of use of technology. In the early millennia, human crafts learning were acquired in a long and laborious manner, by serving with a master who gradually trained the initiate in the mysteries of the skill. Such instruction was set in a matrix of oral tradition of information delivery and hands-on making, where spoken word and physical manipulation of materials were the media and people had limited access to information in society. In the fifteenth century, the invention of printing technologies allowed large numbers of copies of a work to be made rapidly, expanding the availability of information to society and enabling greater knowledge construction and learning, and supporting faster scientific advancement as it meant that other people‟s ideas were more readily accessible for being assimilated, challenged and/or transformed. In the 20th century, the personal computer revolution together with the growth of the World Wide Web was seen as a significant contributor to world communication and access to information and knowledge, and also
6 as a source or an instrument for new learning opportunities. Technology and media, in this way, throughout history, have continuously transformed communication and life in society in general, and have also brought changes to social relations, work organization, and daily life practices. In the field of education, however, the transformation brought by technology and by media of dissemination, as well as by mode of representation of information, has taken a slower pace than in many other life segments. For a long period of time, traditional classrooms have been characterized by the oral delivery of information through lecture, like in ancient times, supported by visual verbal and imagistic representation of the content on blackboards – through notes and sketches – and accompanied by behaviors such as students raising their hands before speaking, trying to sit quietly at desks, listening to the teacher and taking notes. And the applications of technology to the field of education have not been able to change that significantly, and, so far, have failed to meet the promise. According to Whitney (2007, ¶ 1), they have only affected learning in relation to how the content is delivered, and “have been representative of the first stage of adopting a new [disruptive (Sharples, 2003)] technology [that is, by providing a better and faster way of performing a function], analogous to computing being used only for accounting…. The second stage, resulting in the organizational transformation, is yet to emerge.” If one thing can be said about the unknown future of education and learning, is that: technology will certainly have a role in their transformation. 1.1.2
Affordances, Multimodality and the Design of Technology-Enhanced
Environments for Learning. In any environment, there are certain features or properties that afford both perception and action of a certain kind. These material properties of the
7 environment, inherently attached to action, which provide information for perceiving them, are known as affordances - a concept first developed by Gibson (1977, 1986), arising from an ecological approach to human cognition and perception. In the Gibsonian view, individuals do not create, but discover affordances. With the popularization of the term, and use in different fields, a lot of ambiguity and confusion was created. In design and Human-Computer Interaction, the term affordance is often used to connote intended use. The concept proposed by Norman - introduced in 1988 and later revised - brings a number of changes to the original meaning. According to this view (Norman, 1998, p.123), a distinction is made between „real‟ and „perceived‟ affordances. Salomon describes Gibson‟s notion of affordances as the “perceived and actual properties of a thing, primarily those functional properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used” (Salomon, 1993, pp. 51). McGrenere and Ho (2000) distinguish the actions an object affords or the possibilities for action it creates or its utility, from the perceptual information it provides or what can be perceived that it is possible to do or its usability. The authors affirm that without having specific meaning, the concept of affordance looses value. In the present research, it is considered that the relationship between the different properties of a thing and their actual use can inform design and design research about what possibilities for action exist or what actions are supported, as well as what actions are easily acted upon or not within various contexts. In the literature, there are references to both levels and types of affordances - the first category referring to the nature of perception and the second to specializations of the general term „affordance‟. Gaver (1991) describes four levels of affordances: perceived, hidden, false affordances and correct rejections. Hartson (2003) proposes complementary
8 types of affordances: cognitive, physical, perceptual, and functional. Jewitt (2004b) refers to another type of affordance, named representational, which combines material and social aspects of organisms. Kreijns, Kirschner and Jochems (2002) refer to a social type of affordance, or social affordances, which function(s) as social contextual facilitators that can be embedded in an environment in order to support socialization. Likewise, several other types are encountered in the literature, including technological (Conole and Dyke, 2004a), pedagogical (Weller, 2007) and spatial (Raubal and Frank, 1999). Rasmussen and Vicente (1989, 1992) considered that in any real world situation, a large number of inter-related affordances are available to an active organism, structured together to convey important goal-relevant information. Warren (1995) proposed that affordances can be related in sequential or nested structures. The human body can also be said to enable certain actions and expressions - or forms of representing meaning - and to constrain others, due to the affordances of each representational mode, which forces individuals into making commitments about meaning. Jürgen Ruesch (Ruesch and Prestwood, 1950), a pioneer in bringing embodiment as communication into the applied arena of the human sciences (Lanigan, 1995), affirmed that the whole body can be looked upon as an instrument of communication. In 1951, Ruesch and Bateson, in Communication - The Social Matrix of Psychiatry,
examined
the
asymmetrical
communication
interactions
between
psychotherapy supervisors and supervisees, taking note of the embodiment applications to communication and the diagnosis of stressed embodiment. For instance, within a group of the 12 women and 9 men who had undergone major operations (Ruesch, 1972), the majority had significant problems with human interaction and social process. The
9 negative embodiment was manifest in a number of communication factors in the patients‟ comportment, such as inadequate gestures, poor system of codification and inability to consider the double meaning of communication actions. Through “the sequence of [embodied, multimodal] interactions of dialogue, action-feedback, adaptation and reflection [perceived and expressed not only through speech, but the entire body] … students … [are] exposed to new ideas, … [and able to] link these to enhancing their practice, … [and able to] improve their practice and link this improved practice to further developed understanding, … [and able to] assure the quality of their understanding” (Laurillard, Stratfold, Luckin, Plowman, and Taylor, 2000, p.4). Through learners multiple modes of interaction and communication, or multimodality, different possibilities and limitations for action become available. Multimodality deals with all the means human beings have for making sense of everyday experiences and conveying meanings (Kress, 2004). And it refers to the modes of representation such as: facial expression, speech, gesture, gaze, drawing and writing. It is an essential part of how human beings interact, and each mode creates different possibilities and limitations for interaction and communication. According to Norris (2004), “all interaction is multimodal”. Learning, likewise, is woven with multimodal interaction. Discourse analysis studies in educational settings (Cazden, 2001; Adger, 2001; Mehan, 1979; Gumperz and Herasimchuk, 1975) have been trying to uncover the way in which talk in school is unique, helping to explicate the actions in which learning is realized. The emphasis on the linguistic aspect of classroom interaction, however, fails to account for the multiple fused semiotic modalities that together, rather than in separation, help extend the understanding of the learning that
10 takes place during both traditional and online classroom interactions. Within learning environments, action, multimodal communication and learning are intricately interwoven, and “meanings are made, distributed, received, interpreted and remade in interpretation through many representational and communicative modes” (Jewitt and Kress, 2003, p.1). Multimodal studies within educational settings are fairly recent. Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, and Tsatsarelis (2001a) conducted a multimodal study of school-based teaching in order to challenge the assumption that learning and teaching are primarily linguistic accomplishments, and not visual and actional. The authors show that classroom texts are realized through the interaction of different modes of communication or organized means of representation. For example, the construction of the entity „cell‟, in a year 7 Science classroom, involved speech, action – in the form of experimentation, and image. The process of construction also involved the transformation of information across modes, e.g. verbal analogy to visual analogy, and experimentation into written report. Here, communication is extended to refer to all meaning-making systems. Bourne and Jewitt (2003), for example, took a multimodal approach to understand the ways in which the interpretation of literary texts is constructed through social interaction. The authors looked at a year 10 English classroom, showing that higher-order literacy skills are realized and constructed through the configuration of talk, writing, gesture, gaze, movement and posture. An example is the use of a diagram by the teacher to talk about the abstract notion of gender and link the behavior of male students to the characters in the story and men in general. The authors showed that the understanding of teaching and learning is facilitated and extended through the multimodal analysis of social interactions. In this way, it is asserted in this research that the study of
11 multimodality or modes of interaction within learning settings mediated by technology can help identify learners‟ unacknowledged needs, purposes and abilities, and, in this way, inform the design of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments.
1.2
Research Focus
The goal of the present study is proposing a methodological framework or a process for: capturing learning practice in situ within learning environments with a range of uses of technology; analyzing the data in terms of multimodality; describing the analysis in ways that are informative for designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments or for assessing and improving the design of existing spaces. For this purpose it examines multimodal interaction within traditional and online graduate classroom environments with different ranges of use of technology, mainly within Computer Science and a Design programs. Among the methods for data collection were included: literature review; pilot study; open ended interview; main and complementary video ethnography and follow-up interviews; and documentary analysis of archival material. In total, 27 observations, adding to a total of about 85 hours of video data, and 28 interviews were conducted in this study.
1.3
Outline of the Dissertation
The dissertation is structured into seven main chapters. This introduction sought to give an overview of the research domain and structure of the study. The second chapter reviews the relevant literature on a number of topics that can help turn an interdisciplinary lens on the research, including: Interaction, Communication,
12 Multimodality, Learning, Learning Environments, Information and Communication Technologies, and User-Centered Design. Its goal is to take insights from a variety of fields, mainly Communication, Design and Education, which can inform user-centered design practice and build a deeper and interdisciplinary understanding of learners. From the review stage, it moves to the data collection and analysis phases, making use of qualitative methods. Chapter three presents the description of the study and the research methodology, including objectives, procedures of research, analysis framework and units of analysis. The fourth chapter, entitled, Research Analysis, illustrates the process of analysis that built the methodological framework. For this purpose, it presents the interpreted data and goes over the many dimensions of sub-findings: Traditional versus Online Classroom Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design; Spatial Design, Use of Space and Higher Level Actions within Traditional and Online Classrooms; Available Media, Modes and Technology, and Their Use within Traditional and Online Classrooms; Multimodality and Learning Needs and Abilities within Traditional and Online Classrooms; Traditional and Online Classroom Affordances; and Purposes, Desires and Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments. And the fifth chapter presents the cross analysis of the data, describing available technology, pedagogical and spatial design, and implications for learning. The sixth chapter synthesizes the research into a methodological framework for designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, grounding the steps in the research results, detailing the major processes and describing them in terms of affordances, principles and design criteria. That chapter is sub-divided into five parts:
13 model for describing affordances; evolving model for analyzing multimodality; principles and design criteria for designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments; scenario of a desirable future Technology-Enhanced Learning Environment; and methodological framework for designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. The conclusion is presented in the seventh chapter, reviewing summary research findings, and features of the proposed framework for assessing and designing innovative Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments; revisiting hypotheses and research questions; pointing contributions and limitations of the study; and signaling emerging questions and future research directions. Finally, the appendix and bibliography are presented.
14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This section is both a compilation and a critical review of the relevant literature on a number of topics that can help turn an interdisciplinary lens on the research. For this purpose, it is divided into seven parts: 2.1) Interaction, 2.2) Communication, 2.3) Multimodality, 2.4) Learning, 2.5) Learning Environments, 2.6) Information and Communication Technologies, and 2.7) User-Centered Design. The first sub-section defines interaction and interactivity, and discusses topics such as embodied interaction and Human-Computer Interaction. The second sub-section defines the term communication, and discusses social presence and media richness, amongst other topics. The third sub-section defines multimodality, and examines multimodal communication, and multimodal discourse analysis, amongst other topics. Sub-section four defines learning and discusses learning theories, learning styles, learning cycles, pedagogical approaches, and affordances for learning, amongst other topics. The fifth sub-section defines and discusses learning environments. The sixth sub-section defines information and communication technologies, and discusses technological affordances. Finally, sub-section seven concludes the second chapter by briefly defining and discussing user-centered design. The following sub-section begins by presenting the organization of the contents related to interaction and defining the term.
2.1
Interaction
This sub-section aims at reviewing selected topics related to interaction, which can add to the understanding of learners interacting multimodally within Technology-
15 Enhanced Learning Environments. For this purpose, it was further sub-divided into seven parts: 2.1.1) Defining Interaction, 2.1.2) Defining Interactivity, 2.1.3) Differentiating Interaction and Interactivity, 2.1.4) Types of Interaction and Interactivity, 2.1.5) Levels and Stages of Interaction, 2.1.6) Embodied Interaction and 2.1.7) Human-Computer Interaction. 2.1.1
Defining Interaction. Interaction corresponds to reciprocal events that require at
least two objects and two actions (Wagner, 1994), and occur when these objects and events mutually influence one another. Munck and Mayer (2000) describe interaction as the process of having a mutual effect, involving transferal of information with or without an intention behind it. The referred authors affirm that it can have nine forms of transferal of information - a conscious or intentional transmission of information which is received consciously, subconsciously or by a medium with no consciousness; a sub-conscious transmission of information, which is received consciously, subconsciously or by a medium with no consciousness; or a non-conscious piece of information, which is
INTERACTION
received consciously, subconsciously or by a medium with no consciousness (Figure 1).
Conscious
Conscious
Human reception and information
Sub-conscious
Non-conscious
TRANSMITTER
Figure 1. Transferal of Information and Interaction
Sub-conscious Non-conscious
SUBJECT
processing Media/ Computer
16 2.1.2
Defining Interactivity. The interactivity of a situation looks both at the ability of
artificial or living entities participating in the interaction to objectify themselves as part of the exchange, and the ability of the media to transmit this mutual effect, where purposes are mutually dependent. Stone, Maxwell and Keating (2001) explain interactivity as the fundamental principle underlying the growth of communication between users and responsive systems delivered through the Internet, CD-Rom and other digital media. Rafaeli (1988) affirms that interactivity is an expression of the extent that, in a number of communication exchanges, any third or later transmission or message is related to the degree to which previous exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions, leading to the concept of interactivity continuum, which includes a full range of possible levels, from two-way or non-interactive, to reactive or quasi-interactive, and fully interactive. Finally, Kiousis (2002) defines interactivity as:
The degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-tomany, and many-to-many), both synchronously and asynchronously, and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency). With regard to human users, it additionally refers to their ability to perceive the experience as a simulation of interpersonal communication and increase their awareness of telepresence (p. 372).
Interactivity is a major feature of multimedia and a key characteristic of communication in new media. 2.1.3
Differentiating Interaction and Interactivity. Interaction and interactivity are
terms that are sometimes used interchangeably in web design to refer to the interplay
17 between user and computer. A distinction, however, can be drawn between the two terms by regarding interactivity as a characteristic of the technological system that allows for person-to-person or person-to-computer interaction (Laine, 2003). According to Beaudouin-Lafon (2004), interaction can be viewed as a sensory-motor phenomenon, where the user input generates an output perceived by the user. 2.1.4
Types of Interaction and Interactivity. The types of interaction available at one
moment vary from one context to another, and might also have different emphasis or importance. In the field of education, for instance, according to Moore (1989), three types of interaction are relevant: learner-content, learner-instructor and learner-learner. The items in this list could be renamed and expanded in the following way, in order to include the learning environment: learner-context, learner-mediated content, learner-learner, and learner-instructor. According to Bergeron (1999), there are ten types of interactivity: object, linear, support, update, construct, reflective, simulation, hyperlinked, non-immersive contextual, and immersive virtual. 2.1.5
Levels and Stages of Interaction. Chou (2002) proposes different stages of
interaction within the context of social construction of knowledge and constructivist learning environments, which elucidate how higher level of critical thinking can be achieved by participants. These stages are: sharing/comparing information, discovering dissonance and inconsistency in information, negotiating meaning/co-constructing knowledge, testing and modifying the proposed synthesis in meaning, and agreeing/applying the newly constructed meaning. 2.1.6
Embodied Interaction. Embodiment is broadly understood as the unique way
18 an organism‟s sensory-motor capacities enable it to successfully interact with its surroundings. According to Dourish (1999), embodiment is the property of being manifest in and as part of the world. Embodiment plays an important role in constructing the contexts that determine meanings. Csordas (1990) argues that a paradigm of embodiment, or a “methodological perspective [of embodiment] that encourages reanalyzes of existing data and suggests new questions for empirical research” (p.1), can be elaborated for the study of culture and the self. Likewise, embodiment can be used for the study of communication and interaction. 2.1.7
Human-Computer Interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, HCI, is
concerned with the design, evaluation, and implementation of interactive computing systems. Dourish (1999) affirms that history of HCI can be seen as an ongoing attempt to capitalize on the full range of human skills and abilities, moving from electrical models of interaction to increasingly more natural ones. In the 1980‟s, the advent of visual computing, together with the mouse - used for pointing, selecting and dragging, the high resolution bitmapped displays, the overlapping windows and the pop-up menus, led to a shift to more easy-to-use graphical interfaces and more user-centered systems. The works from Card, Moran and Newell‟s „Human Computer Interaction‟ in 1983, and from Draper and Norman‟s „User-Centered Systems Design‟ in 1985, and the success of the early ACM CHI conferences contributed in this direction. Soloway, Guzdial and Hay affirmed in 1994 that computing technology was finally reaching the point where the HCI community could address the challenge of
19 “making people smarter” (Norman, 1993), by shifting from user-centered to learnercentered systems. In the last decade, research in multimodality and multimodal systems, along with the search for more natural models of interaction has led to the creation of a new field: Multimodal Human-Computer Interaction or MMHCI. According to Jaimes and Sebe (2005), MMHCI lies at the crossroads of several research areas, including computer vision, psychology and artificial intelligence. A multimodal HCI system is characterized by the ability to respond to inputs in more than one modality or communication channel, such as vision and speech. A concern, however, relates to the fact that modalities are, often, still treated separately, and the results are integrated only at the application stage. In this way, the synergy and roles of different modalities remain to be qualified and understood.
2.2
Communication
This sub-section aims at reviewing selected topics in communication that are informative in relation to the communicative processes taking place within TechnologyEnhanced Learning Environments. The choice of topics considered the relevance to the comparison of face-to-face (FtF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC), representing what happens to communication within traditional and online classroom settings. For this purpose, this sub-section was further sub-divided into nine parts: 2.2.1) Defining Communication, 2.2.2) Communication Versus Interaction, 2.2.3) Presence and Social Presence, 2.2.4) Media Richness, 2.2.5) Context, 2.2.6) Face-to-Face Communication, 2.2.7) Mediated Communication, 2.2.8) Collaboration, and 2.2.9)
20 Affordances for Communication. The following sub-section begins by defining communication. 2.2.1
Defining Communication. Communication is a difficult term to define.
According to Griffin (1997), most definitions probably say more about the author than they do about the nature of communication. And because the field of communication embraces both scientific and humanistic views of the world, the adoption of a broad definition helps to avoid favoring one approach over the other. Frey, Botan, Friedman and Kreps (1991) give a definition that frames communication as an intentional activity, while not ruling out accidental outcomes: “communication is the management of messages for the purpose of creating meaning” (p.28). 2.2.2
Communication Versus Interaction. Munck and Mayer (2000) describe
communication as a specific type of interaction, “where there is an intention for the transmitter to have a piece of information perceived at the other end” (p.4). As seen, interaction can have nine forms of transferal of information, while communication can have only three of them - the ones where there is an intention behind the transferal, that is, a conscious transmission of information, which is received consciously, subconsciously or by a medium with no consciousness (Figure 2). By combining these views of communication and interaction, the authors conclude that certain types of perceived communication are not communication, but interpretation of signals and move to the re-definition of interaction. In this new approach, interaction is still rooted in the objectification of the subject, but instead of having a conscious human subject, it adopts a media with a faculty for being affected by the interaction.
COMMUNICATION
INTERACTION
21
Conscious
Conscious
Human reception and information
Sub-conscious
Non-conscious
Sub-conscious Non-conscious
TRANSMITTER
processing Media/ Computer
SUBJECT
Figure 2. Transferal of Information and Communication
2.2.3
Presence and Social Presence. The concept of presence, according to Heeter
(1992) has three dimensions: personal presence, social presence and environmental presence. Personal presence is a measure of the extent to which a person feel present and the reasons why; social presence refers to the extent to which other human beings and things are perceived to be present and appear to react to someone; and environmental presence relates to the extent to which the environment itself appears to know that someone is there and react to this person. Social Presence Theory (Short & Christie, 1976) states that different communication media enable different levels of experience of the social presence of individuals who are engaged in communication. That is, different communication media afford to the communicator different degrees of awareness of the presence of the interaction partner or the person‟s intentions and emotions (Sallnäs, 2004), causing diverse social effects. Such levels of experience or awareness are related to the attributes of the medium, that is, the quality of the social cues or active nonverbal channels
22 available while the social/interpersonal information is transmitted. For instance, the availability of auditory and visual non-verbal communication channels, immediacy, message feedback, identifiable communicators, and information related to cultural and ethnic background, social status, gender and age, grants a high level of social presence. In addition, the modes of representation of information that each particular medium affords, such as still image and writing, also play an important role in determining the levels of experience of the social presence of the individuals engaged in communication. The same medium, such as a computer application, can be designed in different ways and afford different modes of representation, although it might be limited in terms of the modes it can include. The concept of presence is intimately associated with the concept of multimodality, which will be discussed later. Shortly: the more access human beings have to the different communicative modes, such as intonation and gaze, the more they can feel each one‟s presence. Presence as social richness is related to the concepts of intimacy and immediacy (Lombard and Ditton, 1997), considering variables such as physical proximity, eye contact, intimacy of conversation topic, and amount of smiling (Argyle and Dean, 1965). A medium high in presence as social richness, consequently, allows interactants to adjust the level of intimacy through the adaptation of these variables. 2.2.4
Media Richness. According to the media richness theory, the transmission of
rich information requires instantaneous feedback and a higher level of interactivity (Bubas, 2001). Richer electronic media, like video teleconferencing, for example, which includes the use of real-time video cameras with the display of image and sound, allows increased social presence of the communicators.
23 The richness of a specific medium is related to: the speed of production, sending and receiving of a message; the interactivity or possibility of two-way information exchange and feedback, considering the time lag between the sending and reception of a message; and the completeness, that is, the degree to which the medium can transmit nonverbal forms of a message and representations of emotional content. The e-mail and chat facilities, for example, are less able to completely transmit an interpersonal message in comparison with video teleconferencing. On the other hand, the reduced social cues and additional time available to formulate a response message on e-mail enables better control over the impressions others form of the other person engaged in the interaction, many times anonymously. Bubas (2001) suggests that text-only communication, in most interactions, places little importance on communication skills, like adaptability and nonverbal expressiveness, and on personal physical appearance, which, in FtF communication, contributes to more effective real-time interpersonal message design and production. 2.2.5
Context. Context refers to the particular setting, or the set of circumstances or
facts that surround and influence a particular event. Context can be explained through its many levels, which are intimately related to one another, such as the physical, social, cultural and historical contexts. Cultural context, for instance, refers, in the semiotician sense of culture, to the sum of rule-governed, shared, learned and learnable, transmittable, symbolic activity surrounding and used by a group in any given place and time (Irvine, 2005), such as meanings, values and significance circulated in second-order languages, like symbols, images and myths, that use both the native language and other sign-systems like visual
24 images, mass media and information technology. Cultural context is both a preexisting and constantly changing set of sign-systems found surrounding and in a group, through which shared and stored meanings involving a mediated content are transmitted. With the contribution of Situated Action Theory, context is seen as the coconstruction of social actors (Riva and Galimberti, 1998), and not something external. In this sense, in the co-construction, the meaning of messages is effectively clarified by relating them to a shared context of meaning, also composed of many levels. In a virtual experience, according to Ijsselsteijh and Riva (2003), actors are given a symbolic system where they negotiate the meaning, or progressively discover and make sense, of the various situations that arise around and between them. Here, the actors, once again and even more emphatically in the absence of rich sensorial information and other cues, need to relate the meaning of the situation to a shared context of meaning in order to be able to clarify it. 2.2.6
Face-to-Face Communication. In FtF communication, human beings rely on
multiple senses when interacting with others in order to communicate and collaborate efficiently. In mediated interaction, contrastingly, the communication channel is more or less constrained, and humans have to cope with the fact that they can not get all the information that they get in FtF communication. FtF is always synchronous, and is characterized by more flexibility and diversity in forms of information exchange because of numerous channels – such as verbal, audio, visual and tactile – and immediate feedback. In FtF, the interactants have access to multimodal information, such as intonation, gaze and other rich nonverbal forms of expression. Additionally, FtF communication allows adaptability, contributing to a more
25 effective real-time interpersonal message design and production. Finally, it has also the highest level of social presence and greater richness. 2.2.7
Mediated Communication. Mediated communication relates to the concept of
mediatization, which is used to refer to the effect different media have on the message they transfer. In this way, mediated communication is limited by the affordances and constraints of the different media and technologies, such as the World Wide Web and computers, to disseminate information. Computer-Mediated Communication research brings the analysis of how communication takes place within computer-mediated environments. According to Bubas (2001), it involves exchange of information in textual, audio and/or video formats, which are transmitted and controlled by the use of computer and telecommunication technology. CMC works as the basis for interpersonal interaction via groupware systems. December (1997) defines CMC as “a process of human communication via computers, involving people, situated in particular contexts, engaging in processes to shape media for a variety of purposes” (p.01). The first important point to note is that two different types of CMC can be identified: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous CMC is produced when communication occurs simultaneously between two or more users, and it can be distinguished from other forms of communication due to: multimediality, hypertextuality, packet switching, synchronicity and interactivity. Asynchronous CMC is produced when communication is not simultaneous. It differs in psychosocial terms from non-electronic written communication, in spite of the predominance of the textual mode. According to
26 Riva and Galimberti (1998), experimental studies point to a significant difference in the degree of social presence and media richness. Overall, computer mediation creates an asymmetrical imbalance in the senderreceiver relationship, that is, the sender is able to transmit information and get cooperation under way, but needs to guarantee that the receiver receives the transmission. The receiver, though, has no guarantee that the sender‟s declared identity is the real one. Consequently, CMC is a process of negotiation, and the only way to understand it is through the analysis of the subjects involved and the environment in which they operate, bringing emphasis to the context in which CMC occurs. For the analysis of the social context of multi-users within virtual environments, Riva (2001) explores the use of the Situated Action Theory and the Positioning Theory. Considering, additionally, that new processes and activities are constantly developed, the initial relationship between subject and context is challenged and modified continuously. In this way, in order to fully understand interaction, a detailed analysis of the social context in which it occurs is necessary. CMC interaction is more rarefied than normal conversation interaction, excluding meta-communicative features and using mainly textual devices, which take longer than normal FtF communication. In most CMC environments, especially in asynchronous communication, typical features of FtF conversation, like feedback and co-formulation of the message, are missing. And, within an e-learning environment, all those issues will affect learning outcomes. Spitzberg (2001) emphasizes the fact that, in order to adopt new technologies that support CMC, users are forced to cope with new requirements, to adapt to new features
27 and to develop competence, that is, motivation, knowledge and skills in using technical systems, and that applies to distance education too. So, bringing this discussion to the context of online learning, mediated communication competence begins with motivation as an important prerequisite, together with the belief that the activity, referring here to the remote learning activity, will result in a positive outcome. The more motivated a user engaged in CMC, within the distance learning environment, the greater knowledge and skill in its use will be encouraged, leading to higher achievements. Knowledge, as the second component of CMC competence, can be obtained, for example, through a trialand-error approach, learning from printed or online material, and instruction from a peer or expert. Technical knowledge regarding the operation of the medium, however, is not sufficient, since it is also necessary to know the conventions, rules and roles of communication exchanges through CMC within the e-learning environment. Finally, skills, as the third component of CMC competence, are defined as repeatable goaloriented behaviors that manifest the ability of an individual to perform a certain communication related task, relating both to the technical system used for CMC and to conduct in interpersonal communication. Some of the important interpersonal skills related to competence in CMC, since there is a lack of non-verbal cues and feedback in CMC interaction, are: attentiveness (the ability to show interest in and concern for the interaction partner/s), interaction management (the ability to control the time and relevance of communication, attract the interest of the interaction partner, engage him/her in desired communication activity, and succeed in regulating the pattern of interaction in a preferred way), expressiveness (the ability to animate the message, fill it with emotion, and make it lifelike or vivacious in
28 order to capture and preserve attention, induce an emotional response and transmit a relational message), and composure (the ability to display confidence, mastery, and comfortableness in CMC with a specific medium). All these issues need to be addressed in order to have a successful online learning experience. Weisgerber and Butler (2005) argue that few interactive online distance learning systems are informed by current CMC research during their design process. And that, instead of trying to make computer-mediated-interaction more like FtF, research could exploit the advantages of asynchronous CMC in order to achieve communicative and relational outcomes that are considered by Walther (1996) superior to those attainable through FtF interaction, such as development of hyperpersonal communication. Walther refers to hyperpersonal communication as online communication that is more socially desirable and more intimate than FtF communication, including features such as the ability of CMC users to build their impressions of one another, due to the reduced cue nature of the medium, on any piece of information they receive about their communication partner, often overestimating the similarities between themselves and their partner and experiencing an increased perception of group identity. The author affirms that CMC affects the four elements of the traditional communication model - receiver, sender, channel and feedback – in ways that are not always possible in FtF interaction due to differences in affordances. Weisgerber and Butler (2005), however, are speculative when they consider the benefits of asynchronous CMC to e-learning, affirming that students are likely, for instance, to build community of learners, due to the described feature, and that peer-to-peer learning is likely to be
29 positively affected. In this way, the authors‟ argument is not based on actual user research data, and is, therefore, questionable. 2.2.8
Collaboration. Successful communication inevitably requires collaboration,
or joint intellectual efforts, and collaborative activities often include communication, whether FtF or mediated by technology. Engaged collaborative discourse, according to Xin (2002), corresponds to a group of intellectual acts that progress through stages. It starts at the initiation zone, moving to negotiation and co-construction, and further to integration. The initiation zone includes posing (introducing new concepts, and defining context, boundaries and means) and clarifying (removing ambiguity). The negotiation zone includes confirming (expressing agreement) and disagreeing (providing counter arguments). The co-construction zone includes elaborating (articulating at greater length) and evaluating (testing ideas). And the integration zone includes extending (branching into new concepts) and synthesizing (identifying emerging themes and drawing conclusions based on synthesis). In between these zones there is always a gray transitional area, through which acts progress gradually and interactively, stepping back and forward. Kraut, Fussell, Brennan and Siegel (2002) analyze why computer-mediated environments for collaboration are not as successful as physically-shared ones and identify the mechanisms by which proximity makes collaboration easier in the context of the work place. Some of these mechanisms are: ▪
It is easier to initiate a communication session when people are physically collocated;
30 ▪
Physical collocation has positive consequences for the frequency of chance encounters and communication;
▪
The organization of encounters in venues for collaboration, such as universities, helps to increase the likelihood that encounters lead to conversation and that conversation lead to collaboration;
▪
Physical proximity facilitates conversation, allowing communicators to create a common ground and easily exchange evidence about what they do or do not understand;
▪
FtF affords visual, auditory, and gestural cues, making possible for communicators to have feedback on how the message is being understood as it is being delivered;
▪
Physical collocation makes the coordination of turn-taking easier; and
▪
FtF conversation increases the prospects for repairing misunderstandings.
Proximity, however, does not have only positive aspects. The referred authors also identify some of the disadvantages created by proximity: ▪
Initiating communication among people whose schedules do not align become more difficult due to the requirement for synchronicity;
▪
Physical proximity may lead to non-welcome spontaneous conversations, to interruptions and to loss of privacy;
▪
Only the group of people in the same geographical area is privileged by physical proximity; and
▪
FtF interaction places cognitive demands on speaker and listener, since spontaneity requires planning and executing utterances simultaneously at
31 multiple levels, formulating long-term conversational strategies, and monitoring feedback. 2.2.9
Affordances for Communication. Visibility, co-presence, mobility and
co-temporality are some of the affordances of media that affect collaboration (Kraut, Fussell, Brennan and Siegel, 2002). Affordances, according to Gibson (1986), refer to the possibilities for action posed by objects in the real world, based on the perceptual information available in it. They are material properties of the environment that provide information for perceiving them in order to support the actor‟s existence and survival. In other words, in the point of view of the author, affordances or the directly perceivable meanings of the environment are inherently attached to action. According to McGrenere and Ho (2000), the Gibsonian view of affordances is attached to three fundamental properties: a) affordances exist relative to the action capabilities of a particular actor, b) their existence is independent of the actor‟s ability to perceive it, and c) affordances do not change as the needs and goals of the actor change. Albrechtsen, Andersen, Bødker and Pejtersen (2001) affirm that “Gibson did not define affordances as inherent features of the environment nor of the actor, but as dynamic elements evolving through the situational coupling between actor and environment” (p.31). Hartson (2003) affirms that Gibson‟s definition refers to the physical properties of an artifact, which is equivalent to what Don Norman calls real affordances, reckoned with respect to the user, who is part of the affordances relationship. Norman (1988) described affordances as “the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used. A chair affords („is for‟) support and, therefore, affords sitting. A chair
32 can also be carried” (p.9). This view of affordances relates to the design aspect of an object, which suggests how the object should be used. The author is particularly concerned about avoiding denoting that affordances are elements that can be added, for instance, to an interface. In his understanding, symbols and constraints are not affordances, and in information systems they exist independently of what is visible on the screen. Flach (1995) suggests that Norman confuses affordances with invariants, and Albrechtsen, Andersen, Bødker and Pejtersen (2000) indicate that Norman operates with fixed concepts of subject (user) and object (system), while at the same time excluding their explicit and implicit goals. Hartson (2003) explains that Norman makes reference to two different types of affordances and emphasizes the need for understanding the difference between the two terms: real affordances and perceived affordances. The first, as already mentioned, refers to physical properties, and the second, to cognitive affordances or to the characteristics in the appearance of a device that give clues for its proper operation. Gaver (1991) splits the concept of affordances into four levels: perceived affordances, hidden affordances, false affordances and correct rejections. In the sum of all possibilities for action posed by an object, some of them will be effectively perceived by the individuals - these are called perceived affordances. In contrast, an object can afford different actions which individuals might not be able to perceive - these are named hidden affordances. An object, nevertheless, can have properties that mislead the judgment of individuals, who mistakenly think it affords a certain action, while it doesn‟t – these are known as false affordances. Finally, an object can create possibilities for nonaction, that is, the perceptual information available indicates to individuals that a certain
33 action should not be taken – and these are called correct rejections. According to Albrechtsen, Andersen, Bødker and Pejtersen (2000), Gaver‟s taxonomy is concerned with whether user-machine interactions are supported by affordances. Hartson (2003) also supports the idea that “Gaver sees affordances in design as a way of focusing on strengths and weaknesses of technologies with respect to the possibilities they offer to people who use them” (p. 317). In „Affordances of Media Spaces for Collaboration‟, Gaver (1992) explored a few of the properties of media spaces – such as affordances for vision, for listening, for movement, for interactive movement and for predictable interaction – and their implications for perception and interaction. Some apparent differences between Norman‟s and Gibson‟s affordances (McGrenere and Ho, 2000), are: a) Norman talks of both perceived and actual properties, implying that a perceived property may or not be an actual property, but still it is an affordance – that is, the perception by an individual may be involved in characterizing the existence of the affordance; b) Norman indicates that an affordance refers primarily to the fundamental properties of an object, while Gibson does not; c) for Norman there is no actor as a frame of reference – he believes that affordances result from the mental interpretation of things, based on past knowledge and experience applied to perception of the things. Some differences between Norman and Gaver (Albrechtsen, Andersen, Bødker and Pejtersen, 2000) are: a) Gaver finds that culture, experience and intentions are indeed entangled in the user-system interaction, while Norman reduces such entanglement to a mechanistic match between system and user representations; b) Gaver does not consider
34 the learning dimension or the development in cognition that takes place when the user explores a system, while Norman tries to explain such possible evolution. Albrechtsen, Andersen, Bødker and Pejtersen (2000) argue that both Gaver‟s and Norman‟s consider affordances an almost static surface phenomenon, ant that their concepts of affordance are rather short term. In addition, they simultaneously imply detachment from the actors‟ situational use contexts. The authors present an alternate view of affordance influenced by Activity Theory, AT, and Cognitive Systems Engineering, CSE. Activity Theory perceives the relation between human being and environment as dynamic, and it shares with Gibsonian thinking the basic idea that perception is connected with action. However, AT insists that Gibsonian thinking lacks “a clear understanding of the relations between the social-historical dimension and the evolutionary-biological aspects of the concrete sensory-motor operations realizing the actions of the individual” (p.16). Contrary to Norman and Gaver‟s notions of affordances, AT and CSE consider affordances specific to human work activity – the background, and its socio-historical, cultural and organizational dimensions, goals and constraints. Consequently, affordances are viewed as properties of the work environment that evolve dynamically and that are embedded in socio-cultural contexts. Albrechtsen, Andersen, Bødker and Pejtersen (2000) propose that AT can be used to explain the role of affordances in learning. And in the same way it is possible to discuss the existence or lack of affordances for learning, it is possible to talk about affordances for communication, for socialization and so forth. In this way, a particular
35 system situated in a specific context can create or not certain possibilities or opportunities for communication or learning to occur. According to Kraut, Fussell, Brennan and Siegel (2002), some of the general communicational affordances of media are: audibility (participants are able to hear other participants and the sounds in the environment), visibility (participants are able to see other participants and objects in the environment) , tangibility (participants can touch other participants and objects in the environment), co-presence (participants are mutually aware of the fact that they share a physical environment), mobility (participants can move around in a shared environment), co-temporality (participants are present at the same time), simultaneity (participants can send and receive messages at the same time), sequentiality (participants take turns, and the relevance of each turn to another is signaled by adjacency), reviewability (messages do not fade over time and can be reviewed) and revisability (messages can be revised before being sent). Hartson (2003), understanding the importance of the concept of affordance to HCI and the often misuse of the term, proposes a new terminology that he considers relevant to interaction design, dividing the concept into complementary parts, in an attempt to create a common language within the field. The four complementary types of affordances are: cognitive affordances, physical affordances, perceptual affordances, and functional affordances. Physical affordances are the design features that help, aid, support, facilitate or enable users physically doing something. One example of physical affordance is found in a button that is large enough for users to click accurately. Cognitive affordances are the design features that help, aid, support, facilitate or enable users to think about something and/or knowing about something. One example of cognitive affordance is found in button
36 labels that helps users to know what will happen if they click on it. Sensory affordances are the design features that help, aid, support, facilitate or enable users in sensing something, such as seeing, hearing or feeling. One example of sensory affordance is found in label font size large enough for users to read easily. And functional affordances are the design features that help, aid, support, facilitate or enable users to accomplish work, that is, it refers to the usefulness of a system function. One example of functional affordance is found in the internal ability of a system to sort a series of numbers, which are invoked by users when they click on the Sort button. Hartson‟s terms cognitive affordance and physical affordance refer to parallel usability concepts for interaction design, to which perceptual affordance plays a supporting role.
The concept of physical affordance, relative to Norman‟s real
affordance, carries a mandatory component of utility or purposeful action, called functional affordance; this requires statements about such affordances to include a reference to that purpose. The author considers that perceptual affordances are necessary to support cognitive and physical affordances throughout the user‟s interaction cycle. Additionally, he argues for connecting all four kinds of affordance in contextualized HCI design or its evaluation context.
2.3
Multimodality
Multimodality deals with all the means human beings have for making sense of everyday experiences and conveying meanings, referring to the modes of representation such as drawing or writing (Kress, 2004). It is an essential part of how human beings interact, and each mode creates different possibilities and limitations for interaction and
37 communication. The choice of mode has profound effects on meaning because each mode forces individuals, whether intended or not, into making commitments about it. In this way, understanding multimodal interaction and the synergy between different modalities is central to the development of multimodal design solutions in general, and specifically
of
Technology-Enhanced
Learning
Environments
informed
by
multimodality. This sub-section is further divided four parts: 2.3.1) Defining Multimodality, 2.3.2) Understanding Multimodal Interaction, 2.3.3) Multimodal Discourse Analysis, and 2.3.4) Multimodal Systems. It starts by defining multimodality. 2.3.1
Defining Multimodality. The fusion of modalities leads to the concept of
multimodality. Multimodality is based on the use of sensory modalities by which humans receive information, such as touch, vision, audition etc., and requests the use of at least two response modalities regarding presentation of information, like verbal and manual activity (Baber and Mellor, 2001). The prefix ‟multi‟ literally means „more than one‟ and the term „modal‟ refers to the notions of „modality‟ and „mode‟. Modality relates to the type of communication channel being used to convey or acquire information, and the individuals have access to a wide range of them through which they typically interact. Mode refers to a state in which the way a piece of information is interpreted or extracted to convey meaning is determined. Some examples are: gesture, movement, sound-effect, speech, writing and image. Modes can be realized in more than one production medium. Media correspond to the material resources used in the production of semiotic products and events, including both
38 tools and materials (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2001), like printed books, CD-ROMs or computer applications. In a communication act, whether between humans or between a computer system and a user, modality, mode and medium come into play. The modality defines the type of data exchanged, whereas the mode determines the context in which the data is interpreted and media gives the material support. 2.3.2
Understanding Multimodal Interaction. According to Norris (2004, p.2), “all
movements, all noises, and all material objects carry interactional meaning as soon as they are perceived by a person.” Through the use of different modes of communication, individuals interact and transmit complex messages on several levels simultaneously, influenced by the appearance, spatial configuration and dynamics of the context where they are situated. The body, situated in the world, becomes the unfolding locus for the display of meaning and action. The forms of embodiment relevant to interaction are multiple and within a single action different kinds of embodiment are relevant to its organization (Goodwin, 2000b). One important factor is the ability of interactants to systematically perceive how other interactants‟ bodies are doing things by virtue of its positioning within a changing array of diverse semiotic fields (Goodwin, 2000a). Referring to what multimodality means in human communication, Jokinen and Raike (2003, p.2) affirm that: […] it refers to the use of a variety of sensory input/output channels which allow sensory data to be received and transformed to higher-level representations, and through which manipulation of the environment can take place. Human cognition assumes that a combination of multimodal information is available, and a constant stream of visual, auditory,
39 olfactory and tactile sensations is processed in the brain where the data generates cognitive and emotional states. The cognitive state then functions as a starting point for executing an action through the motor control system to control and coordinate the information flow. In fact, multimodality seems so natural to human communication that we do not pay attention to the whole range of modalities used in our every-day interactions: we perform speaking, writing, signing, lip-reading, drawing, gesturing, touching, listening, and watching with ease, and hence have developed lots of tacit knowledge about multimodal communication.
Communicative codes embrace both verbal and non-verbal communication modes. The behaviors that constitute non-verbal communication can be categorized into seven types of nonverbal codes according to Ciccia, Step and Turkstra (2003): kinesics (messages sent by the body, including hand/arm gestures, facial expression, body movement, posture, gaze and gait), vocalics (paralinguistic or vocal cues other than words - such as accent and cadence; vocal charactizers – such as laughing, crying, and yawning; vocal qualifiers – such as volume and tempo; vocal segregates – sounds such as uh-huh; and vocal rate), physical appearance (manipulable cues related to the body, including hairstyle, clothing, cosmetics and fragrance), haptics (skin contact cues, including frequency, intensity and type of touch), proxemics (spatial cues, including interpersonal distance, territoriality and other spacing relationships), chronemics (use of time as a message systems, including punctuality, amount of time spent with another, and waiting time), and artifacts (manipulable objects in the environment that reflect messages from the user or designer, such as furniture, art, pets and other possessions).
40 Blatner (2002) suggests thirteen categories of non-verbal communication: personal space, posture, gesture, pacing, eye contact, paralanguage, touch, adornment, physiologic responses, position, expression, locomotion and context. Other categories and nomenclature are found in the literature (Poyatos, 1983, 2002; Knapp, and Hall, 2001; Guerrero, Devito and Hecht, 1999; Richmond, McCrosky, 1999; Beebe, Beebe and Redmond, 2002), including: oculesics, the study of communication through the eyes, including eye gaze, eye contact, eye movements, blinks, and pupil dilation amongst others; olfactics, the study of interpersonal communication through smell; and objectics, where the face, body, clothing and accessories also communicate. Hall (1968) explains proxemics more broadly in terms of human perception and use of space, and not only interpersonal distance. Figure 3 presents a summary of the categories and sub-categories of verbal and non-verbal codes. Understanding the different communicative modes in isolation is the first step for the understanding of multimodal interaction (Norris, 2004). Communicative modes, like head movement, gesture, spoken language are all systems of representation. Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) affirm that a system of representation is a semiotic system that includes rules and regularities. In Norris (2004) view, a communicative mode is never a static unit, but a heuristic unit, meaning that it can be defined in various ways and it has no clear boundaries. For instance, furniture can be a communicative mode or an element within the layout mode. Spoken language is a communicative mode that can include several sub-units, such as utterances. Although usually sequentially organized, from smaller parts that add up to larger ones, it can also be realized simultaneously (Tannen, 1984).
Oculesics
Spoken language contact
gesture;
Figure 3. Verbal and Non-Verbal speed). Codes
(tempo and
- Vocal rate
uh-huh);
as mmmm and
(sounds such
segregate
- Vocal
and tempo);
pitch, rhythm
(volume,
qualifier
tattoos).
yawning); - Vocal
on person's neck, chest).
brandings,
crying, and
(fixing gaze
(body
enhancements
- Appearance
- Body shape;
piercings,
charactizer
touch.
- Other spacing relations.
- Type of
(laughing,
- Indirect eye
- Gail.
- Vocal
- Cosmetics;
- Intensity of - Jewelry;
- Clothing;
skin contact;
touch;
- Hairstyle;
- Frequency of
- Territoriality;
distance;
- Interpersonal
- Location;
Contact
eyes);
tone);
into person's
- Posture;
expression;
nasality and
(looking
cadence,
loudness,
- Direct eye
Kinesics - Facial
Vocalics
- Hand/arm
Proxemics - Use of space;
Haptics
(accent,
Physical Appearance
- Vocal cue
possessions.
- Other
- Pets;
- Art;
- Media;
- Materials;
- Objects;
- Rugs;
- Furniture;
- Automobiles;
- Possessions;
Artifacts
- Gaze;
mimicry, behavioral meshing).
(doing several things at the same time, or
- Waiting time.
person;
another
spent with
- Amount of time
conversations);
multiple
mirroring,
(such as
with another
non-verbal cues
one person's
- Coordination of
- Polychronemics
at a time);
(doing one thing
- Monochronemics
- Lateness;
- Punctuality;
Chronemics
- Eye contact ;
Synchrony
Movement
- Physical
smells.
- Other
- Perfumes;
Smells;
- Body
Olfactics
expression.
Codes
Non-Verbal
- Location
- Accessibility;
- Lighting;
- Room color;
- Room size;
- Context;
Environment
- Verbal
Codes
Verbal
41
42 Proxemics refers to the ways in which individuals arrange and make use of their space. The distance individuals take from one another and in relation to relevant objects are both focus of concern. Proxemics behavior is culturally conditioned and gives insight into the kind of social interaction that is taking place and the level of formality or informality involved. Hall (1966) distinguishes four types of distance: intimate, personal, social and public. Posture relates to the ways in which individuals position their bodies during interaction, including form of the body, such as open or closed arms and legs (Dittman, 1987), and postural direction taken by an individual towards others. In the literature, gesture may refer to hand and arm movements only or include facial expressions. It is easier, however, to analyze them as separate communicative modes. According to Kendon (1978), hand and arm gestures are deliberately expressive movements with sharp boundaries of onset, including elements and a trajectory. According to Norris (2004), “hand and arm movements are often interdependent and concurrent with spoken language, slightly preceding the spoken discourse” (p.28). Often, it is difficult to recognize the meaning of a gesture without language. The major types of hand/arm gestures can be classified into: iconic, metaphoric, deictic and beat. The face is a highly developed organ of expression. Facial expressions many times reveal feelings that the individual is not intending to communicate or even aware of (Ekman, 2002). Some examples are: pensive, amused, anxious or confused. Head movement refers to the ways individuals position their heads, and can be distinguished between: rotational (shaking the head), lateral (tiling the head to the right or left) and saggital (nodding movements).
43 Gaze relates to the organization, direction and intensity of looking, and it varies from culture to culture and sub-culture to sub-culture. Other communicative modes are, for example: music, print, color, layout, dress, object handling and touch. Anastopoulou (2004) organizes modalities into modalities of the real, symbolic and digitally enhanced worlds, and contrasts them with modalities of the science classroom. Modalities of the real world include: vision (spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, color perception, depth perception, etc.), audition (sound recognition, sound localization, loudness perception, noise masking, etc.), touch (kinesthesia and haptics), smell and taste. Some of the modalities of the symbolic world are: visual representation (e.g. images, graphs and animations), aural representation (e.g. music, spoken language and other sounds), and kinesthetic representations. Examples of modalities of the digitally enhanced world are: vision (static and dynamic graphs), audition (spoken language), and action (head movement). Finally, some of the modalities of the science classroom are: the visual (drawings, book illustrations and text), the aural (spoken language), and the actional (gestures and object manipulation). 2.3.3
Multimodal Discourse Analysis. One of the challenges for the analysis of
multimodal interaction is related to the different structures of the various communicative modes, which may be sequentially, globally synthetically, functionally or appearing randomly structured. Another challenge is the need to make clear links between the analysis of interaction and the analysis of a person‟s awareness, referring only to the awareness and attention that individuals express during interaction and to which others react (Norris, 2004).
44 The methodological framework for analyzing multimodal interaction developed by Norris suggests that the communicative modes should first be defined and the actions, or interactional meaning units, identified. The author classifies actions into: higher level (bracketed by an opening and a closing, such as a conversation, and made up of a multiplicity of chained lower-level actions), lower-level (smallest interactional meaning unit, such as the intonation used during the conversation), and frozen (higher-level actions that are performed by an individual or group of people anytime before the interaction and that are entailed or frozen in the material objects, such as a magazine lying on the table). Next, the communicative modes are analyzed separately. Then, the modes that are interdependent upon one another are analyzed in combination with their hierarchically interconnected structure. Finally, all communicative modes are looked at together. Methods for studying multimodal interaction (Luff, Hindmarsh and Heath, 2000; Heath and Hindmarsh, 2002; Norris, 2004; and Rostvall and West, 2005) are not new. Heath and Hindmarsh (2002), for instance, propose novel methods for transcribing and analyzing speech, gestures, body orientations and interactions with technology. Rostvall and West (2005) offer a multidisciplinary theoretical framework for designing video studies of interaction, and for analyzing and transcribing data, including even a software tool to help in this process. The problem that these approaches bring to the design process is that they often propose extensive and time-consuming analyses or fail to provide a strategy to narrow down the analysis focus, even when aided by software, and that the research findings, usually full of jargon, are mainly represented through one modality only – text, and whenever they include video clips and graphs, they often exclude the
45 translation of the semiotic modalities, which are essential in communicating findings to a multidisciplinary design team. Moura (2006a) presents an alternative to these approaches. The novelty of the proposal lies on the fact that it is tailored to the fast-paced design process and that it emphasizes the need to communicate main findings visually, and not only textually, to other design team members, including relevant aspects of the different multiple fused semiotic modalities that together, rather than in separation, help extend the understanding of the interaction that takes place. The author, in this way, reviews and expands on the methodological framework for analyzing multimodal interaction developed by Norris (2004), providing a strategy for conducting both a telescopic and microscopic analysis of the interaction in a time efficient manner, making it possible to gain deeper insights about users‟ modes of interaction in the context where the interaction takes place, even under very constrained time frames. It starts by placing focus on multimodality, based on the understanding that human beings make and convey meaning through a variety of complementary communicative modes. Next, it seeks to systematically guide the methodological choices the researcher needs to make in order to select the main portions of the interaction for refined multimodal analysis. Finally, it proposes a strategy for quickly communicating the main findings visually, including all the relevant multimodal aspects of the interaction across time and space. A video ethnographic study of multimodal interactions conducted within a Design Graduate classroom is used as an illustration of the application of the proposed framework, representing both human interactions, and interactions between human beings and the artifacts they use (Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12).
46 The analysis framework proposed by Moura (2006a) starts with the telescopic phase, where the major patterns of use of time and space are identified, allowing the visual mapping of the interactional meaning units that take place (Figures 4, 5 and 6).
Figure 4. Use of Time
This step is followed by the selection of the higher-level actions for detailed analysis (for example, a conversation), following certain criteria, which will be explained in the following paragraph. During the selection, the author points out that it is important both to include the units that can help build an overview of the entire process and a focus on the more significant clusters. After the selection of the higher level actions, the intermediate level actions (which are smaller sequences of actions within a higher level
47 action - for instance, Sally turns to John to ask what time they will need to leave, followed by John‟s reply) and lower level actions within each (such as an intonation unit) are identified, and selected according to relevance. This step is succeeded by the definition of the larger heuristic units or communicative codes of analysis (kinesics, for example) and, within each, the intermediate heuristic units or communicative modes of analysis (such as facial expression), as well as the smaller sub-units within each (like eye gesture), whenever relevant. These steps are followed by the analysis of each communicative mode with all its sub-units separately, as suggested by Norris (2004), then the communicative modes in combination, next the communicative code, and, finally, all the higher-level actions.
Figure 5. Instructor‟s Use of Space
48
Figure 6. Students‟ Use of Space
49
Instructor
Actor
Action
Verbal Communication
Non-verbal Communication
Space
Time
A) Higher level action:
A.1.1.1.a) Communicative
A.1.1.2.a) Communicative code:
Location:
7:05:26
instructor feedback on
code: Spoken language,
Kinesics,
position 2
student performance,
Communicative mode:
Communicative mode: Gaze:
(Figure 2.7),
A.1) Intermediate level
Verbal expressions: “one of
instructor gazes at three students
towards the
action: instructor walking
the things that I would
being assessed
three students
around the stage area making
probably would have added
comments on the group
is a North start through it”
presentation, A.1.1) Lower
Verbal expressions: “It is
Gesture: instructor moves hand
Location:
level actions: spoken
sort of the number of people
from his chin to the side, with the
position 2
language units, and selected
using the various
palm of the hand upwards and with
(Figure 2.7),
gaze, posture and head
technologies”
a curved shape like a shell,
towards the 3
representing the quantity he is
students
movement units
7:05:35
talking about, and then moves
Team A Female Student
hand back to chin. Verbal expressions: “That is
Posture: student stands with her
Location:
something”
arms crossed, in a closed and
Student 3
defensive position, and plays with
position
the left leg as if dancing, indicating
(Figure 2.7)
7:05:40
she is trying to relax, towards a open leg standing position, indicating she is ready for action Verbal expressions: “that
Gaze: Looking at the instructor
Location:
came through towards the
Student 3
end and we did not have
position
time”
(Figure 2.7)
Verbal expressions:
Head movement: rotational head
Location:
“to put it together.”
movement, indicating negative.
Student 3
7:05:42
7:05:45
position (Figure 2.7)
Figure 7. Interaction Between the Instructor and One of the Students from Team A, After the Group Presentation
50 The steps of the proposed framework follow: ▪
Definition of the aim(s) of the study and the research question(s) – the aim(s) and research question(s) in the study will determine the selection of the interactional meaning units or higher-level actions, and the amount of detail that is necessary in the transcription (sample aim: to explore the opportunities for multimodal interaction design within educational settings; sample research questions: a) What are the major patterns of multimodal interaction within graduate classrooms?, b) How can technology help create new opportunities for instructor-student and student-student narrative construction within and beyond graduate classrooms?);
▪
Definition of the focus and conduction of video study of multimodal interaction (for instance: focus will be given to the multimodal interactions that occur in the central classroom area, where students present their projects and the instructor delivers a lecture); Start of the telescopic phase of the analysis – definition of the major patterns of use of time and space (example of major activities: presentation, communication, practice and assessment; example of major patterns of use of time and space: Figures 4, 5 and 6);
▪
Selection of higher-level actions for detailed analysis based on research question(s), including both the units that can help build an overview of the entire process and the ones that can help bring focus to the more significant clusters (such as: student project presentations and manipulation of artifacts during presentations);
51 ▪
Selection of the intermediate level actions (for instance: instructor gives feedback on Team A presentation, starting 7:05:26);
▪
Selection of the lower level actions within each intermediate level unit (such as: a gaze unit);
▪
Definition of the larger heuristic units or communicative codes of analysis (kinesics, for example);
▪
Definition of the intermediate heuristic units or communicative modes of analysis within the communicative codes of analysis (such as gaze);
▪
Definition of the smaller sub-units within each (like an eye gesture);
Figure 8. Sample Multimodal Analysis A
52
Figure 9. Sample Multimodal Analysis B
Figure 10. Sample Multimodal Analysis C
53
Figure 11. Sample Multimodal Analysis D
Figure 12. Sample Multimodal Analysis E
54 ▪
Start of the microscopic phase – analysis of each selected communicative mode with all its sub-units separately (Figure 7);
▪
Analysis of the communicative modes that are interdependent upon one another in combination, with their hierarchically interconnected structure;
▪
Analysis of the communicative codes;
▪
Analysis of all the higher-level actions.
▪
Selection of the main sections for visual representation after the completion of the analysis, including details about use of time and space, and about the different semiotic modalities used during interaction, as well as their translation to common language (Figures 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11). Still images or simple drawings combined with balloons, text, arrows and other symbols can be used to highlight the different communicative modes and to represent action across time and space, as well as to translate the semiotics into simple language.
2.3.5
Multimodal Systems. A system can be defined as an organized assembly
of resources and procedures, which are united and regulated by interaction or interdependence
to
accomplish
a
set
of
specific
functions
(Institute
for
Telecommunication Sciences, 1996). From a system-centered view, multimodality refers to the capacity of responding to inputs in more than one modality or communication channel. From a human-centered perspective, multimodality is related to the different modes of communication (Figures 13 and 14), according to human senses, like sight, touch, hearing, smell and taste, or according to type of computer input device, divided into modalities that map directly to human senses, like cameras (sight), haptic sensors
55 (touch) and microphones (hearing), and modalities that do not map directly to human senses, such as keyboard, mouse and writing tablet (Jaimes and Sebe, 2005). According to Schomaker, Nijtmans, Camurri, Lavagetto, Morasso, Benoît, Guiard-Marigny, Le Goff, Robert-Ribes, Adjoudani, Defée, Münch, Hartung and Blauert (1997), a multimodal system, besides using multiple communication channels, “is able to automatically model the content of the information at a high level of abstraction” (p.1). That is, a multimodal system strives for the meaning or the intention of the user‟s actions, and it extracts and conveys meaning automatically.
EQUIVALENT TO HUMAN SENSES
NOT EQUIVALENT TO HUMAN SENSES
▪ Sight
▪ Hearing ▪ Smell
▪ Camera
▪ Keyboard
▪ Haptic
▪ Mouse
▪ Touch
▪ Taste
sensors
▪ Microphones
▪ Writing tablet
▪ Olfactory
▪ Motion
▪ Taste
Devices
Figure 13. Modes of Communication
Input
56 Multimodal systems, according to Jokinen and Raike (2003), “are systems that represent and manipulate information from different human communication channels at multiple levels of abstraction” (p. 4). They emphasize abstract levels of processing, together with explicit representations of both the interaction context and the user(s), and research on beliefs, intentions, attitudes, capabilities and preferences of users. The authors affirm that these systems typically include components responsible for media and mode analysis and design, interaction and context management, and user modeling and knowledge sources.
Human Senses
Human Modalities of Interaction and Communication
FACIAL EXPRESSION HEAD MOVEMENT GAZE GESTURE HAND MOVEMENT ARM MOVEMENT OBJECT HANDLING BODY POSTURE
Input
BODY MOVEMENT PROXEMICS SPOKEN LANGUAGE WRITING DRAWING MUSIC ETC
Interfaces
Applications
Device s
INTELLIGENT
MEETING
ATTENTIVE
AMBIENT
AFFECTIVE
ARTS
WERABLE
DRIVING
ADAPTIVE
REMOTE COLLABORATION
MULTIMODAL
DISTANCE LEARNING
PERCEPTUAL
E-BUSINESS
ETC
ETC
Figure 14. Human-Centered View of Multimodal Interaction (adapted from Jaimes and Sebe, 2005)
57 In some cases, multimodal systems are also characterized by the use of a variety of output modalities, such as speech synthesis, prosody and smart graphics. But in the general sense, it offers a combination of input devices for users to interact with the system and for the system to give feedback to users, like microphones, speakers, keyboards, pointing devices, touch screens and cameras. Jaimes and Sebe (2005) point out that only systems using more than one modality category are multimodal. In this way, a system that responds only to facial expressions and hand gestures – both under the visual input category, for instance, is not multimodal, even if integration of these inputs, whether simultaneous or not, is used. But a system with a mouse and a keyboard input is. The authors argue that the issue is where the integration of modalities takes place, if at all. „Put that there‟ (Bolt, 1980) is one of the first multimodal systems, allowing users to interact with the world through its projection on the wall and making use of speech and pointing gestures. Since then, several multimodal systems have been built, such as CUBRICON (Neal, 1990), OGI‟s QuickSet System (Cohen, Johnston, McGee, Oviatt, Pittman, Smith, Chen and Clow, 1997), MedSpeak (Lai and Vergo, 1997), Portable Voice Assistant (Bers, Miller and Makhoul, 1998),
Boeing‟s Virtual Reality Aircraft
Maintenance Training prototype (Duncan, Brown, Esposito, Holmback and Xue, 1999), QuiQui‟s Giant Bounce (Hämäläinen and Hoysniemi, 2002) and many others. Jokinen and Raike (2003) propose that multimodality brings new integration and possibilities for the development of interactive systems. A variety of the vision, haptic and other techniques for MMHCI are available. The vision techniques, for instance, which can be classified and divided according to how users interact with the system:
58 large-scale body movements, gestures and gaze. Some examples of these vision-based human motion analysis systems are: body posture analysis systems, gesture recognition systems and eye tracking systems. Extensive surveys are available on the topic; some examples are: Jaimes and Sebe (2005) – MMHCI; Zhao, Chellappa, Rosenfeld, and Phillips (2003) – face recognition; Yang, Kriegman, and Ahuja (2002) – face detection; Tian, Kanade, and Cohn (2003) – facial expression analysis; Murray and Arnott (1993) vocal emotion; Marcel (2002) – gesture recognition; Gavrila (1999) - human motion analysis; Duchowski (2002) - eye tracking; and Benali-Khonudja, Orange, Maingreaud, Hafez, Kheddar, and Pissaloux (2004) – haptic. As stated by Jaimes and Sebe (2005), multimodal techniques can be used to construct a variety of interfaces, such as perceptual and attentive interfaces. The authors emphasize the importance of multimodal interface design, since the principles and techniques used in traditional Graphic User Interface based or GUI-based interaction are not necessarily applicable to MMHCI systems. Among some issues to consider are: the design of input and output devices, adaptability, error handling, consistency and robustness. Regarding the level of technological maturity of multimodal interfaces, Oviatt (2003) identifies three main types: speech/pen, speech/lip movement, and multibiometric input. Gutiérrez, Thalmann, Vexo, Moccozet, Magnenat-Thalmann, Mortara, and Spagnuolo (2005) propose a variation of the speech/pen interface, replacing the pen input by basic posture recognition of a magnetic tracked wand. Figure 15 presents the elements involved in a multimodal interface. Despite the technological maturity of some multimodal technologies, they are usually implemented as ad-hoc systems, that is, they are developed for a specific purpose,
59
Modulation Function
Modulator
(is modulated by)
(is registered as)
(forwards modulated input to)
Interaction Data (Output Parts)
Functionalities (Input Parts) Interaction Mapping
Interaction Device (is instance of)
Virtual Entity Device 1 Output 1 Output 2
Entity 1 Input 1 Input 2
(is instance of)
Device 1 Output 1 Output 2
PDA
Hand Tracking
Virtual Character
Video
Figure 15. Elements Involved in a Multimodal Interface (adapted from Gutiérrez, Thalmann and Vexo, 2005)
case, or situation at hand and for no other, even when designed with a focus on flexibility. In addition, most researchers still treat each modality separately and only integrate the results at the application stage (Jaimes and Sebe, 2005). Multimedia systems share some similarities with multimodal systems, in the sense that, from the user‟s point of view, both use multiple communication channels. The difference between the two lies in the fact that multimedia focuses on the medium or the technology and multimodality focuses on the application or the user. In addition,
60 multimedia systems do not generate abstract concepts automatically, nor transform information into higher-level representations.
2.4
Learning
Understanding learning and how it is interwoven with multimodal interaction is at the center of the present study. This sub-section extracts from the literature the major works on learning and learning theories that can inform this research. For that purpose, it is sub-divided into eight parts: 2.4.1) Defining Learning, 2.4.2) Learning Theories, 2.4.3) Learning Styles, 2.4.4) Learning Cycles, 2.4.5) Online Learning, 2.4.6) Learning and Narrative Construction, 2.4.7) Pedagogical Approaches and 2.4.8) Affordances for Learning. The following sub-section starts by defining learning. 2.4.1
Defining Learning. A view of learning always reflects underlying theories of
learning. In the behaviorist tradition, learning can be defined as a process by which a particular stimulus, once repeatedly associated with an experience, either desirable or undesirable, comes to evoke a particular response. The behaviorist perspective, in this way, suggests that learning can be explained as a series of accumulated stimulus-response associations and components of skills (Greeno, Collins and Resnick, 1996; Schunk, 2004). The behavioral theories hallmark, consequently, is not that they explain learning in terms of behavior, since all theories do that, but in terms of environmental events (Schunk, 2004). According Pinto (1992), learning can be understood as a change, whether in relation to behavior, attitudes, values, competencies. In Schunk‟s (2004) view, learning involves “the acquisition and modification of knowledge, skills, strategies, beliefs,
61 attitudes and behaviors” (p.1), and it is an enduring, not temporary or only a few seconds long, change in behavior or change in capacity to behave in a particular way, which comes from practice or other forms of experience. These views emphasize the cognitive perspective, where learning is inferential, that is, it can not be directly observed, since it takes place within human brain, and individuals often do not demonstrate immediately the skills, knowledge, beliefs and behaviors they learned. What can be observed, in fact, are the products of learning; for example, through what people say, write and do. Cognitivist theories are concerned with the less visible processes related to learning (Voges, 2005), such as memory, attention and information processing, and they emphasize the importance of organized patterns in cognitive activities. In this tradition, learning can be defined as a process whereby problems are solved through a series of discoveries, which are facilitated by previous experiences. In whole-brain learning theory (Herrmann, 1996), learning also takes place within the human brain, which tries to make sense of incoming information by seeking associations between new information, which enters the brain in the form of electric impulses, and past experiences that have been incorporated into the neural networks (Voges, 2005). According to this view, within the human brain, which consists of billions of nerve cells that communicate through neurotransmitters to form complex networks or circuits, learning takes place in-process and relates to the on-going lives of the learners. According to Jensen (1995), learning occurs when synapses and neural networks are formed and stabilized in the brain. And the more often these neural networks are accessed, the stronger the connections become; and once stabilized, these neural paths activate spontaneously when needed. Effective learning happens when the whole brain is
62 involved in the learning process (Herrmann 1990, 1996; Jensen, 1995), that is, its four quadrants – cerebral left, cerebral right, limbic left and limbic right – work together as one brain system. According to constructivist theories, learning can be defined as the active process of constructing meaning (Piaget, 1970), as well as transforming understandings, in interaction with the environment (Schunk, 2004; Voges, 2005). In this way, in opposition to the behaviorist and cognitivist views, learners are not passive beings that respond to stimuli and learning is not simply a process of acquiring knowledge and storing it in the brain for later retrieval. Rather, it is through the learner‟s existing frame of reference or interpretative framework that learning builds on and is constructed (Gravett, 2001; Voges, 2005; Schunk, 2004). The socio-historic perspective acknowledges that human activities take place in cultural contexts, and encourages novice learners to work closely with experts in joint work-related activities. It views learning as an assisted activity, where more able individuals actively scaffold learners performance at a level beyond which they could not perform by themselves (Hickey, 1997; Schunk, 2004; Voges, 2005; Gravett, 2001), within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86). Lave and Wenger (1991) view learning as a situated activity, where learners participate in communities of practitioners, moving, in the socio-cultural practices of a
63 community, toward full participation for mastery of knowledge and skill – a process known as legitimate peripheral participation. In the present research, it is assumed that learning is situated in particular sociocultural contexts, and it is the result of mediated experiences that are afforded (Gibson, 1986) or constrained by interactions with the situation (King, Young, Drivere-Richmond and Schrader, 2001). In this way, the possibilities and limitations for action of particular situations affect learning. Furthermore, learning takes place whenever and wherever the individual is receptive and it can have different purposes or intentions, which, according to the referred authors, can be classified into: a) objective-driven learning, such as in instruction; b) non-objective driven learning, such as in exploration; and c) unintended learning. 2.4.2
Learning Theories. Regarding learning theories, the behaviorist approach
is best known by the work of Skinner on operant conditioning. Within the behaviorist tradition, other important works are: Pavlov‟s classical conditioning, Thorndike‟s connectionism, Watson‟s behaviorism and Guthrie‟s contiguous conditioning (Schunk, 2004; Gredler, 2005; Hergenhahn and Olson, 2005). The theory from Robert Gagné, conditions of learning, suggests that cognitive theories of instruction have a limited scope. Each proposes instructional methods that provide the necessary learning conditions for each type of learning goal. In 1972, the author suggested that lessons include nine events of instruction: gaining attention; informing the learner of the objective; stimulating recall of the prerequisite learning; presenting stimulus materials; providing learning guidance; eliciting performance; providing feedback; assessing performance; and enhancing retention and transfer. In
64 1985, the author divided possible learning outcomes into five large categories: declarative knowledge or verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes and psychomotor skills. For over 30 years his theory has gone through many changes, going from behaviorist to cognitivist in nature (Driscoll, 1994). The better known cognitivist theories are: the information-processing theory, Bruner‟s theory of instruction, Gagné‟s categories of learning tasks, Gestalt approaches to learning, and the works of Ausubel and Robinson on cognitive field theory (Voges, 2005; Schunk, 2004; Hergenhahn and Olson, 2005; Gredler, 2005). Constructivist theories can be clustered into exogenous, endogenous and dialectical constructivism (Schunk, 2004; Voges, 2005). The first cluster, exogenous constructivism, views the acquisition of knowledge as a reconstruction of structures that exist in the learner‟s internal world. The second cluster, endogenous constructivism, views new knowledge as an abstraction from old knowledge. Dialectical constructivism lies in between exogenous and endogenous constructivism, suggesting that knowledge is generated through the interactions of internal and external factors, that is, cognitive and environmental factors. The socio-historic or socio-cultural perspective introduced by Vygotsky (1978), with emphasis on the influence of the cultural-historical setting, and the socio-cultural knowledge acquisition theory proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991), with emphasis on social interaction, provide partial foundation to this research project. One of the key points in Vygotsky's theory is the emphasis on social interactions in the development of cognition. According to Vygotsky (1978): "Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level;
65 first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals." (p.57). Contemporary research supports the socio-cultural claim that the relationship between individuals forms a basis for cognitive and linguistic mastery. This process, whether in the classroom or elsewhere, includes transmission, construction, transaction, and transformation in a continuing, complex interplay (John-Steiner and Mahn, 1997). Lave and Wenger (1991), on the other hand, argue that learning is situated, since it normally occurs as a function of a particular activity, context and culture. Herrmann (1990, 1996), in addition, brings the perspective from whole brain research, where learning is meaningless without context, emotions or patterns. Herrmann‟s whole brain model is based on the principle that “four interconnected clusters of specialized mental processing modes that function together situationally and iteratively, making up a whole brain in which one or more parts become naturally dominant” (Herrmann, 1996: p.14). Herrmann's system does not try to be an accurate model of the way the brain functions. Instead, it is a model of different thinking and learning styles, partially inspired by the brain. 2.4.3
Learning Styles. The literature on learning styles offers a wide and confusing
array of concepts. Despite that, experimental studies confirm their influence on learners‟ attitudes, values, degree of social interaction, and way of processing information, affecting academic performance. In fact, learning styles research offers a rich area for extracting insights, especially regarding how learners‟ perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment, helping designers of Technology-Enhanced Learning
66 Environments transform the promise of technology into real innovative learning experiences. Definitions of learning styles vary. One of the most frequently used ones was proposed by Keefe (1979): “Learning Styles are characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment” (p.4). Another typical definition explains learning style as a consistent or habitual mode of acquiring or imparting knowledge through study, experience or teaching (Beishuizen and Stoutjesdijk, 1999). Messick (1994) defines learning styles as “modes of perceiving, remembering, thinking, problem solving, and decision making, reflective of information-processing regularities that develop in congenial ways around underlying personality trends” (p.122). In order to try to distinguish concepts that are found in the literature on learning styles, McLoughlin (1999), Curry (1991), and Riding and Cheema (1991), organized the main concepts according to the degree to which they can be observed and articulated (Moura, 2005a), providing a group of definitions and classifications (Table 1). Overall, there appears to be two major threads of research in the Learning Styles literature (Leaver, 1997; Dorwick, 2004). The descriptive approach notes that both teachers and students learn things in different ways and focus on providing information about learner differences, not on preformatted lessons plans. The prescriptive thread, on the other hand, not only notes the differences, but also recommends that teachers overtly design their teaching activities to address one or other dimension of the various criteria for differing styles, and, in this way, dictate classroom practices. Within these two traditions, a variety of labels are found, relating to distinct dimensions of leaning styles.
67 For example, Felder and Silverman (1988), on the one hand, explain learning styles in reference to input preference (sensory/intuitive), sensory modality (visual/verbal), information
organization
(inductive/deductive),
information
processing
(actively/reflectively), and understanding progress (sequential/global). Sousa (1995, 1997, and 1999), on the other hand, identifies three primary differences in learning styles, all related to sensorial modalities: auditory, visual and kinesthetic.
Table 1 Definition of Learning Styles Related Terms Term
Explanation
Learning Preferences
Favoring one method of teaching over another
Learning Strategy
Adopting a plan of action in the acquisition of knowledge, skills or attitudes
Learning Style
Adopting a habitual and distinct mode of acquiring knowledge
Cognitive Strategy
Adopting a plan of action in the process of organizing and processing information
Cognitive Style
A systematic and habitual mode of organizing and processing information
Leaver (1997) has provided a useful systematization of the major concepts, by clustering learning differences into four overarching categories (Figure 16): sensorial modalities, cognitive styles, personality types and environmental preferences, making easier the task of understanding the various existing systems, once they are grouped by
68 Sensorial Modalities
Cognitive Styles
Personality Types
Environmental
Definition
Definition
Definition
Preferences Definition
Students perceive new
The ways in which people perceive and The manners through which learners The physical environment
information through different
process information affect how they
relate to one another and with the
where the learner is
physical channels. Among the
learn. Among the most common
physical and intellectual world
situated and the
most common sensorial
processing systems are: global/
around them have an influence on
physiological conditions,
modalities are: visual
particular differences, leveling/
their learning process. Some of the
like biorhythm, digestion
(verbalist/ imagist), auditory
sharpening differences,
most known factors are:
and atmosphere, influence
(aural/ oral) and motor
inductive/deductive differences,
introversion/ extroversion, sensing/
student learning.
(mechanical/ kinesthetic).
synthetic/ analytical differences,
intuition, thinking/ feeling, Judging/
concrete/ abstract differences,
perceiving. Once combined, they
impulsive/ reflexive differences,
produce different personality types.
sequential/ random differences, and field dependent/ field independent differences
Figure 16. Definition of the Main Categories Related to Learning Styles
type (Moura, 2005a). These four categories are subdivided further and explained on Figures 17 and 18 (Leaver, 1997; Jensen, 1998; Moura, 2005a), 19 (Leaver, 1997; Myers and Briggs, 1976; Moura, 2005a) and 20 (Leaver, 1997; Jensen, 1998; Moura, 2005a). Learning styles literature, in this way, reveal a number of learners‟ needs which need to be accounted for, bringing implications to for classroom practice, as well as to the design of Technology-Enhanced Learning Systems. Assessing learning styles is not a trivial task. The commonly adopted questionnaire format might not be ideal for assessing a number of learners and learner types, as many times students are not aware of their own learning preferences.
69 Sensorial Modalities
1. Visual Learners
1.a. Visual Verbalists
Important visual distinctions: color, shape, size,
They see words.
brightness, contrast, saturation, distance, clarity, texture,
Ex.: If they want to remember the French word for sun, they will see the letters
frame and symmetry. Visual information is processed
soleil in their heads.
and stored in the occipital lobe at the back of the brain. 1.b. Visual Imagists They see pictures. Ex.: If they want to remember the French word for sun, they will associate it with an image of the sun.
2. Auditory Learners
2.a. Auditory Aural
Important sound distinctions: pitch, tempo,
They learn by listening to others.
volume, rhythm, timbre and resonance. Information that is auditory is processed and stored in the temporal lobes
2.b. Auditory Oral
on the side of the brain.
They learn by talking and hearing themselves.
3. Motor Learners
3.a. Motor Kinesthetic
Important movement distinctions: frequency, pressure,
They learn through the use of gross motor muscles.
duration, intensity, speed and direction. Motor information is stored at the top of the brain in the
3.b. Motor Mechanical
motor cortex until permanently learned; then it is stored
They learn through the use of fine motor muscles. Ex.: A motor learner is
in the cerebellum, the area below the occipital lobe.
someone who learns telephone numbers by dialing them. Often, motor learners can not tell someone else the number without picking up an imaginary phone and pretending to dial.
Figure 17. Learning Styles Subcategories Explained, Sensorial Modalities
An alternative to that could be: to observe learners and to use their writing samples as a source of information, once individuals tend to express “reality” through the sense(s) they use to perceive and interpret it, as well as to reveal their thinking processes in the way they structure their writing pieces. This method, according to Leaver (1997), is
70
Cognitive Styles 1. Global vs. Particular Differences
Grasps big picture vs. details.
2. Leveling vs. Sharpening Differences
Notices first similarities vs. differences.
3. Synthetic vs. Analytic Differences
Uses pieces to build new wholes vs. breaks wholes into parts and sees that the big picture is composed of small pieces.
4. Impulsive vs. Reflective Differences
Thinks and responds nearly simultaneously, i.e. very fast, but has problems with accuracy vs. first thinks and then responds, that is, often needs extra time to finish work, so can think over and over, and produce better results.
5. Inductive vs. Deductive Differences
Works from examples to rules vs. from rules to examples.
6. Concrete vs. Abstract Differences
Learns best with real materials and examples, needs to try things out and is able to formulate real-life examples vs. need lectures, books and films, and is able to formulate theoretical, symbolic models very well.
7. Sequential vs. Random Differences
Feels lost without external organization, has an organized bedroom and does one project at a time vs. has own internal order that may not seem so organized to many people and for that reason is often called messy, and does many projects at a time.
8. Field Dependence vs. Field
Needs vs. does not need structure for effective learning.
Independence Differences 9. Divergers vs. Assimilators vs.
A Diverger needs pre-activity work, such as demonstration and discussion, and small group
Convergers vs. Accommodators (Kolb‟s
interaction, i.e. needs to experience subject matter and to observe others at work in order to
Learning Styles Topology)
learn best. An assimilator needs clear rules and detailed information, and is not comfortable taking risks. A converger needs to know “How” and to have hands on practice. An accommodator learns from trial and error, and needs independence in learning.
Figure 18. Learning Styles Subcategories Explained, Cognitive Styles
useful for identifying preferences regarding sensorial modalities, related to the different physical channels through which students perceive and take in new information, and preferences regarding perception and processing of information, known as cognitive styles.
71 Personality Types: Jung Typology 1. Introversion vs. Extroversion
Looses energy in interaction with large numbers of people vs. gains energy from interaction with people.
2. Sensing vs. Intuitive
Needs hard evidence vs. works with intuition.
3. Thinking vs. Feeling
Places principles over people vs. people over principles.
4. Judging vs. Perceiving
Focuses on quickly completing the task, only wants to know the essentials vs. starts too many tasks, wants to know everything about each one and has difficulty in completing them.
Figure 19. Learning Styles Subcategories Explained, Personality Types
Environmental Preferences 1. Preferences regarding sound
Ex.: Studies with music background or silence.
2. Preferences regarding lighting
Ex.: Studies with spotlight or diffuse light.
3. Preferences regarding posture
Ex.: Studies sitting down or lying down.
4. Preferences regarding study time
Ex.: Likes morning or evening better.
5. Preferences regarding digestion
Ex.: Likes to study with a full or empty stomach.
6. Preferences regarding temperature
Ex.: Feels more comfortable with warm or cold.
7. Preferences regarding grouping
Ex.: Likes to study alone or in group.
8. Preferences regarding mobility
Ex.: Likes to study sitting still or moving around.
9. Preferences regarding manipulation
Ex.: Plays with a pen while studying or remains still.
Figure 20. Learning Styles Subcategories explained, Environmental Preferences
Another option would be the use of interviews, which could be useful to identify environmental preferences, related to the aspects of the physical surroundings and physiological conditions that have an influence on students‟ learning process, and to identify personality types, referring to the ways in which learners relate to other people and to the physical and intellectual world around them, and the influence of that on their learning. These solutions, however, might bring other problems to assessment, though,
72 considering that in large traditional classroom settings or within e-learning environments, this might not be an easy task to carry. At present, there are more than 100 instruments especially designed to identify individual learning styles. Most, however, were developed in an attempt to evaluate narrow aspects of learning, such as preference for visual, auditory, tactual or kinesthetic input. For this reason, students should not let any one instrument dictate their learning style (Bonham, 1988; Suskie, 2002). Taking into consideration such abundance of models and instruments for categorizing learning styles, one might find it difficult to apply the concept to classroom practice. With that in mind, Leaver (1997) developed a set of teaching strategies for “teaching the whole class sanely” (p.165). According to her, preparing thirty or forty lesson plans to meet all students needs is neither necessary nor sensible in the real world, and that is not the kind of individualization that whole-class teaching promotes. Rather, teaching the whole class refers to “the establishment of the conditions under which all students can learn successfully” (p.165). The referred author suggests that teachers take care of unusual learning styles in ways that are not overly time consuming. These include: homework assignments, strategy training, counseling, empowerment to change the nature of input, permission to voice needs, small group placement, choice in multifaceted tasks, and affective support. Leaver (1997) provides a formula for wholeclass teaching (Figure 21). Not all teachers and students live in an ideal world. In the real world, large classes constrain the teachers‟ ability to individualize, and many factors compound the risk to students with non-mainstream learning preferences. The fact is that, in the real world,
73 teachers do not always have a choice of materials and textbooks are usually oriented towards one learning style, typically the style of the author. Moreover, standardized tests show little about students‟ knowledge, ability or proficiency, and provide even less prediction regarding how well students will perform on their jobs (Leaver, 1997). In this context, empowering students becomes a necessity. Additionally, creating several kinds of materials to suit different learners does not help students become acquainted with better methods of learning (Draper, 2003).
Formula for the Whole-Class Teaching 1. Determine the students‟ learning styles. 2. Enter each student profile onto a chart. 3. Determine what styles represent the class average. 4. Determine who does not fit the majority profile. 5. Determine the teacher‟s teaching style and note conflicts with students‟ learning styles. 6. Determine the orientation of the materials and note conflicts with students‟ learning styles. 7. Assess the severity of conflicts in styles (3 or more mismatches). 8. Determine ways to include the at-risk students.
Figure 21. Formula for the Whole-Class Teaching (Adapted from Leaver, 1997)
In order to empower students in classroom situations, so they can develop style flexibility, a few steps are suggested by Leaver (1997): increasing awareness of styles and strategies, changing the conflicting situation – either changing the materials, peers, conditions or teacher, and changing one‟s self through the development of strategies that are associated with one‟s non-preferred learning styles. Style flexibility can also be developed by first learning with the preferred style and then reinforcing what was learned through a non-preferred learning style.
74 A formula for whole-class teaching could also be developed for adaptive remote learning environments. It would include the following steps: assess the remote student learning style or cognitive profile; adapt the learning system to the student‟s profile and monitor progress, as well as the need for further adaptation; select the learning materials that best match the student, with the optimal sequence or randomness; provide reinforcement of the learning material on a non-preferred style to promote style flexibility; and promote interaction of the student with other remote students without leading to style conflict. Additional steps to this sequence could be: promote learning self-knowledge, help the student be style aware and acquire a set of learning strategies to enhance academic performance. 2.4.4
Learning Cycles. Oliver and Conole (1999) identified four main types of
teaching strategies: 1) delivery, 2) discussion, 3) activity and 4) feedback. In this research, these four categories are named: 1) one-way delivery of information, or presentation, 2) two-way narrative guidance and construction, or discussion, 3) hands-on practice and performance, or activity, and 4) feedback on performance, or assessment. And because of the affordances of these categories, each is characterized as a learning cycle here. The balanced combination of these teaching strategies, through their affordances, is said to contribute to the learning experience of students. By looking at use of classroom time in combination with these four teaching strategies and how they support learning behaviors of students, it is possible to identify differences in pedagogical approach and design. Teaching strategies or methods, and use of time, resources and space are a few of the elements of the pedagogical design of a class. A variety of teaching strategies are
75 available, and each one can be associated to one of the four above mentioned categories for affording a certain type of interaction and supporting a different type of learning experience. Lecture, for instance, is a teaching method that supports teacher-student(s) one-way delivery of information, one of the four learning cycles. Depending on the number of students and size of classroom, a lecture might only afford students to passively listen to the instructor. And depending on the modes and media used, and the speaking style of the lecturer - for instance, a long lecture, with poor graphic support and a monotone speaker - it might only afford most students to listen with boredom during the first hour and to fall asleep on the second, with very few opportunities for learning anything, except for those rare individuals that are really self-motivated to learn and, therefore, learn despite the instructor or circumstances. In general, one-way-delivery of information affords students to listen and take notes, and in some cases, to ask and answer questions. Discussion or two-way narrative guidance and construction, within the learning environment and in association with it, can take place between instructor and student(s), or student(s) and student(s). Laurillard, Stratfold, Luckin, Plowman and Taylor (2000, p.6) define narrative as “a process of both discerning and imposing structured meanings which can be shared and articulated”. Mandler (1984) affirms that narrative is deeply embedded in human learning, providing an organizing structure for new experiences and knowledge. From the student‟s point of view, the term „narrative guidance‟ refers to the more teacher-controlled form of learning, whereas the term „narrative construction‟ refers to the more student-controlled form (Plowman, Luckin, Laurillard, Stratfold and Taylor, 1999). Through two-way-narrative guidance and construction, students have more
76 opportunities for making sense of the content presented during the one-way delivery of information cycle. In general, discussion, or two-way narrative guidance and construction, either between teacher and student(s), or amongst students, affords continuous speaking, listening, and both asking and answering questions, that is, it affords iterative construction of meaning, with variations on the level of speaker control and hierarchy of the relationship. Practice or hands-on activity, and performance provides opportunities for narrowing the gap between theory and practice, between knowing something in theory and knowing how to translate the understanding into action and apply it to real world contexts. Theory-only classes typically result in little skills and negligible transfer of understanding to practice, thus limiting successful learning (Showers, 1990) and longterm retention of knowledge. In general, practice or hands-on activity and performance affords bringing theory into practice through iterative experimentation, exploration, repetition, testing, ownership of content, presentation, and enactment. Assessment or feedback on performance is a continuous process that ideally provides opportunities for students to improve their learning. It is based upon agreed criteria or educational expectations which the student is aware of, involving an ongoing process of collecting and interpreting data for the purpose of improving understanding. Besides informing students about their progress, assessment can help instructors make informed decisions at different stages of the learning process, and adjust teaching accordingly. In essence, assessment and learning should be seen as two sides of the same coin, so that an assessment exercise also allows students to learn from it as well. The
77 challenge, for both teachers and students, is to shift the assessment paradigm to embrace the concept of assessment as more than a terminal event. There are three different types of assessment that can be used depending on the intended purpose: 1) diagnostic, 2) formative, and 3) summative. The first type, diagnostic assessment, is used to gather information about what students already know and are able to do. It provides a way for teachers to decide on a course of action, using existing knowledge to build upon. It also allows for identification of gaps or misconceptions in prior learning. The second type of assessment, formative assessment, occurs throughout the learning process, providing multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate attainment of identified targeted goals without concerns about grading. It provides ongoing direction for improvement and/or adjustment in learning and instruction. An important element of this type of assessment is feedback. Feedback, which can be positive or negative, makes the biggest impact when it occurs during the learning process. Positive feedback improves confidence, and increases motivation. It can help students to be able to deal with the more negative aspects of their performance. Negative feedback, when given in a constructive way, can have the greatest impact on changing behavior and improving performance. The third type of assessment, summative assessment, is used for the purpose of making final judgments about learning and teaching effectiveness. It provides a look at student performance as well as an opportunity to evaluate teaching practices at the end of the teaching-learning experience and, for this reason, it is decision making in nature. It evaluates the extent to which a student has achieved the end educational outcomes or objectives, contributing to the grading of a student.
78 Classroom assessment can also be categorized into teacher assessment, selfassessment, and peer assessment. Teacher assessment is the most common one, but self assessment is perhaps the most powerful kind of assessment, because it gives students a greater responsibility for their own learning. Through self assessment students can become independent learners, and learn to set their own goals. Peer assessment is also very useful because it teaches students to assess the work of other students objectively, also helping them get insights into their own work through this structured exchange. In general, assessment or feedback on performance affords positive and negative criticism, clarification of educational goals and reflection on them, review and reconstruction of meanings, learning from one‟s and other student‟s successes and mistakes, and planning for new learning activities. By dedicating or not time to these four types of teaching strategies, specific opportunities for learning are created by the instructor. 2.4.5
Online Learning. Traditional classroom communication is structured by bodily
experience (Rohrer, 1998), and so is learning. And since learning is always situated, each situation places limitations on the interaction and makes some activities possible. Here, possibilities for action are understood as Gibson‟s notion of affordances (Gibson, 1986). Within the online environment, learners‟ capability to act is different from the traditional classroom experience in several aspects. As mentioned earlier, learning can have different purposes or intentions, and can be sub-divided into: instruction, exploration, and serendipity. The instruction subcategory, according to King, Young, Drivere-Richmond and Schrader (2001) can be further sub-divided into in-person learning and distance learning. In the first sub-
79 category, the instructor and student share the same time and are situated in the same geographic space. In distance learning, the instructor and student are separated either in relation to time or geographic location, and the interaction is mediated by technology. 2.4.6
Learning and Narrative Construction. According to Plowman, Luckin,
Laurillard, Stratfold and Taylor (1999), narrative is fundamental to the ways individuals make sense of texts because it provides structure and coherence. Narrative, in reality, is not only fundamental in relation to the printed medium, but to every other available media, helping authors and designers to tell a story that structures and give coherence to the experience of the individual. Laurillard (1993) suggests that the various educational media (print, audio, video, and computers) create different possibilities for narrative guidance and narrative construction, giving different contributions to supporting the different aspects of the teaching-learning process. Narrative is fundamentally linked to cognition and understanding; it is “a macrostructure which creates global coherence, contributes to local coherence and aids recall through its network of causal links and signposting” (Plowman, Luckin, Laurillard, Stratfold and Taylor, 1999, p.15-16). Therefore, it is central to the design of multimodal systems for learning. The authors emphasize the importance of the structure of the narrative and of studying narratives within the dynamic process of interaction, and not in isolation. They also point to the relationship between narrative and usability, and develop an approach for guiding narratives to be applied to multimedia interactive learning environments or MILEs. According to Laurillard (1993) “narrative structure is one of the most important ways in which the instructional message comes to be understood, and we have to learn
80 how to manage a medium that undermines its power if it is to succeed in the educational context” (p.4). In relation to interactive systems, it can be said, in the one hand, that the design elements presented by the software constitute narrative guidance and can be characterized by a combination of features. Narrative construction, on the other hand, refers to the active process of meaning-making, simulated by the medium and the environment, and combined with the individual‟s knowledge brought to the experience, involving both discernment and imposition of structure on the materials, allowing individuals to make links and connections in a personally meaningful way. It is a cognitive process that can not be isolated from the socio-cultural context where it takes place. These two processes, narrative guidance and construction, are not separated, but integrated in a dynamic cycle. The design features which effectively engage learners and support meaningmaking processes are (Plowman, Luckin, Laurillard, Stratfold and Taylor, 1999): ▪
A clear defined goal;
▪
A balance between narrative guidance and the provision of facilities that allow learners to determine their own route;
▪
An easy access to the task and to a source where information relevant to the task can be found; and
▪
2.4.7
A model answer.
Pedagogical Approaches. As discussed earlier, a number of learning theories
is available and each one is associated to a different pedagogical approach. Learning technologies, in general, and, more specifically, Learning Management Systems, LMS or information systems that administer e-learning courses and keep track of student
81 progress, have often been advertised as pedagogically neutral, referring to the avoidance of any learning theory or any teaching-learning paradigm or method (Laanpere, Kikkas and Põldoja, 2005). Friesen (2004) points out that truly pedagogically neutral applications can not also be pedagogically relevant. Most LMS developers have mistakenly taken for granted that pedagogical neutrality is a desired property of a system. The target, instead, should be the development of systems that can promote a variety of teaching-learning paradigms through built-in pedagogical features, since pedagogical neutrality can decrease the pedagogical affordances of a system (Laanpere, Kikkas and Põldoja, 2005). In the context of LMS, pedagogical neutrality becomes visible in user interface design, including vocabulary, functionalities and structure. In terms of vocabulary, for instance, the avoidance of all terms connected to learning theories has led to the use of technological vocabulary, which comes inherently from Content Management Systems. Laanpere, Kikkas and Põldoja (2005) propose, instead, the use of metaphors, which can illustrate intuitively the pedagogical goal of a certain feature of the system, such as bookshelves and workshops. In relation to the functionalities of the system, pedagogical neutrality becomes visible in pedagogically meaningless actions supported by the system. The authors suggest the translation of pedagogical methods into activity diagram using UML or Unified Modeling Language, which is a universal technological language for describing the roles, relations and functionalities of a system. In order to facilitate learning with a LMS, the functionalities of the system should be based on the practices that are either familiar to FtF learning situations or developed and validated by research on e-learning. In regard to structure, most LMS are organized in a similar manner, either
82 using spatial metaphors, such as hallways and classrooms, or toolbox metaphors, such as sets of content and assessment tools. The suggestion made by the authors is the use of alternative structuring approaches, based, for example, on teaching-learning methods or didactic principles. In this way, through the use of built-in pedagogical features that become visible in the vocabulary, functionalities and structure of a system, it is possible to promote the desired teaching and learning strategies, which match the selected theoretical perspective. For instance, in the case of behaviorist tradition, learning is understood as a process through which a particular stimulus that is repeatedly associated with an either desirable or undesirable experience comes to evoke a particular response. Some of their basic assumptions are: teachers communicate predetermined, pre-sequenced content knowledge to learners; learners are assumed to be passive; learners need external motivation, including reinforcement; and learners are assumed to master the whole by accumulating parts, including skills (Borthick, Jones and Wakai, 2003). Some of the implications of these assumptions for the design of LMS are: teachers need tools for organizing and communicating knowledge sequentially; teachers need tools to monitor student progress; teachers need tools to make easy the task of motivating students; and teachers need tools to conduct content based assessment. In the case of cognitivist theories, learning is viewed as a matter of developing problem-solving skills that can be transferred to new problems (Anderson, 1981). Some of their basic assumptions are: learners learn best when they engage in active learning; learners learn best when they represent knowledge in multiple ways; learners learn best when they participate in authentic activities with real-world connections; learners learn
83 best when their work is evaluated following authentic assessment; learners learn best when they collaborate with peers in solving real-world problems; and learners learn best when they have access to distributed tools for meaningful learning (Vrasidas and Glass, 2004). Some of the implications of these assumptions for the design of LMS are: learners need tools to represent knowledge in multiple ways; learners need distributed tools for meaningful learning - such as video, audio, multimedia production tools, laboratory experimental tools and expert systems to build knowledge artifacts to represent their learning; learners need visualization tools to visually express and construct meaning; teachers and learners need communication tools to seamlessly interact; and teachers need tools to conduct authentic assessment, instead of content based assessment. Constructivist theories view learning as an active process of co-constructing meaning and of transforming understandings, while learners interact with the peers, tools, content and environment. Some of their basic assumptions are: learners are active knowledge constructors; learners construct knowledge through their existing frame of reference or interpretative framework that learning builds on. Some of the implications of these assumptions for the design of LMS are: teachers and learners need a variety of tools that support student-teacher and student-student interactions. The socio-cultural perspective understands learning as an activity situated in realworld contexts, where it gets its actual meaning. In addition, learning is an assisted activity, where more able individuals actively scaffold learners‟ performance at a level beyond which they could not perform by themselves. Some of their basic assumptions are: learners have a developmental level determined by independent problem solving; learners have a potential level of development, determined through problem solving in
84 collaboration with more capable peers; the distance between these two levels is known as ZPD; learners move towards mastery of knowledge and skill whenever participating in communities of practitioners. Some of the implications of these assumptions for the design of LMS are: teachers and learners need tools that enable them to seamlessly integrate real-world authentic activities within class schedule; learners need tools to interact and collaborate synchronously and asynchronously. Other tools that are necessary to support different views of teaching and learning are (Vrasidas, 2004): tools for teachers to plan and identify goals, objectives, standards and content for the course; tools for teachers to conduct learner and audience analysis; tools for teachers to identify technology requirements; tools for teachers to review other similar courses; tools for teachers to examine samples of activities to match instructional objectives; tools and templates for teachers to design syllabuses for a variety of levels; and tools for teachers to select the appropriate collaboration activities and the right media to support the objectives of the learning experience. 2.4.8
Affordances for Learning. As discussed earlier, affordances for learning refer
to the possibilities or opportunities it creates for learning to occur. So, based on the different existent views of learning, what are the desirable affordances for learning of an adaptive multimodal learning system? Figures 22, 23, 24 and 25 (partially adapted from Kraut, Fussell, Brennan and Siegel, 2002) present a few of these affordances for learning of adaptive multimodal learning system or AMLS, based on the literature review findings, divided into the four types of affordance proposed by Hartson (2003), that is, physical, sensory, cognitive and functional affordances.
85 Some of the Desirable
Definition
Physical Affordances for Learning of an AMLS Multimodality
Learners and instructors are able to communicate and interact with one another through different modes, such as speech, writing, gaze, drawing, and gesture, using different input and output devices.
Contextuality
Instructors and learners have access to information about the context of each other.
Contemporality
Instructors and learners exist at the same historical time.
Adaptability
The run-time interface is transformed at start-up based on adaptation decisions starting from the initial knowledge of each learner attribute values.
Adaptivity
The run-time interface is transformed during interaction based on adaptation decisions due to monitoring information and knowledge of learner attribute values inferred during interaction.
Reviewability
Learning materials and messages do not fade over time, but can be reviewed.
Revisability
Messages can be revised before being sent.
Synchronicity
Instructors and learners can chose to send and receive messages at the same time.
Asynchronicity
Learners and instructors can chose to send and receive messages at different times.
Sequentiality
Whenever interacting synchronously, instructors and learners take turns, and one turn‟s relevance to another is signaled by adjacency.
Timely Feedback
Whether interacting synchronously and asynchronously, learners receive timely feedback from the instructor.
Sufficient bandwidth
Learners and instructors have sufficient bandwidth to use the system.
Figure 22. Examples of Physical Affordances for Learning and Definitions
86 Some of the Desirable Cognitive Affordances
Definition
for Learning of an AMLS High Social Presence
Learners and instructors experience high levels of awareness of the presence of the interaction partner.
Situatedness
Learners and instructors are aware that their actions are situated in particular contexts, which vary from participant to participant.
User-centeredness in narrative
Narrative is designed based on the needs and purposes of learners and instructors.
Precision in use of words
Word choice is precise, avoiding ambiguity.
Clarity in navigation
Navigation is clear and intuitive.
Clarity in content structure
Content structure is unambiguous.
Correctedness of content
Content is 100% correct.
Relevance of content
Content is relevant to subject matter.
Clarity of meaning
Meaning is clear.
Completedness of meaning
Content is complete.
Relevance of layout grouping
Layout is well grouped.
Relevance of information chunking
Information is well chunked.
Figure 23. Examples of Cognitive Affordances for Learning and Definitions
Some of the Desirable Sensory
Definition
Affordances for Learning of an AMLS Adequacy of medium choice
Medium choice provides sensory affordances that are relevant to task at hand.
Feedback noticeability, likeliness to be sensed
Whenever given, feedback is noticeable.
Identifiability
Learners and instructors are identifiable despite choice of medium for interaction.
Visibility of content
Learners and instructors are able to see content.
Audibility of content
Learners and instructors are able to hear one another and the sounds in the environment.
Haptic, tactile, force interaction quality
Learners and instructors are able to sense the feedback from interaction.
Legibility of text
Text is legible to learners and instructors.
Visual quality of graphics
Graphics have high visual quality.
Auditory quality of audio
Audio has high auditory quality.
Color, contrast adequacy
Use of color and contrast is adequate.
Figure 24. Examples of Sensory Affordances for Learning and Definitions
87
Some of the Desirable
Definition
Functional Affordances for Learning of an AMLS Natural Interaction
Learners and instructors are able to interact naturally through the use of technology.
Context Awareness
Learners and instructors are able to have information about the context of their interaction partners.
User-Centeredness
The system is designed in order to meet learners and instructors needs and purposes.
Content Memorability
Content is organized so that it is easy to remember.
Content Accessibility
Content is organized so that any portion of it is easy to locate.
Message Correctedness
Messages are reviewed for correctedness.
Increased Learning Outcomes
The system adapts to learners and instructors in a number of ways in order to improve interaction and
increase learning outcomes.
Choice of Timeliness
Learners and instructors can chose synchronous or asynchronous mode of interaction, according to
their goals.
Ease-of-Use
The system is easy to use.
Coherence
The content and message exchanges are coherent.
Smooth Interaction
The interaction is smooth and free from technological constraints such as bandwidth.
Figure 25. Examples of Functional Affordances for Learning and Definitions
2.5
Learning Environments
Learning is considered here an active process situated in the real-world, interwoven with multimodality, and occurring as the result of mediated experiences that are afforded (Gibson, 1986) or constrained by interactions with socio-cultural contexts. In addition, learning can take place due to exploration, instruction or just unintended,
88 depending on the purposes and intentions of the learners, as long as they are receptive. Furthermore, learning can occur within different contexts, such as traditional classrooms, Virtual Learning Environments and Adaptive Learning Environments, and each context, with its many levels, will influence learning through its affordances and constraints. This sub-section is further divided into seven parts: 2.5.1) Defining Learning Environments, 2.5.2) Traditional Classrooms, 2.5.3) Hybrid Classrooms, 2.5.4) Virtual Learning Environments, 2.5.5) Adaptive Learning Environments, 2.5.6) Multimodal Learning Environments, and 2.5.7) Technology-Enhances Learning Environments. The following sub-section defines learning environments. 2.5.1
Defining Learning Environments. Within formal educational, learning occurs
in a wide range of spaces, from physical to virtual. Currently, a variety of learning environments can be found, from traditional to online. And the growing presence of technology across the different types makes the line that separates these spaces fuzzier and fuzzier. 2.5.2
Traditional Classrooms. In traditional classrooms, students and
teacher meet at a specified time in a physical learning environment, which is usually populated with desks, white boards, and sometimes computers, Internet access and multimedia projectors, supporting mainly FtF interaction. Traditional classroom learning puts learners FtF with instructors and other learners, allowing them to rely on multiple senses and to make use of a full variety of modes of interaction and communication. The affordances of FtF communication are available to all, and, consequently, it provides rich opportunities for learners and instructors to make sense of their experiences and convey meanings.
89 Teaching and learning in the classroom involve, in this way, different modalities of interaction and communication, including speech, writing, drawing, gaze, body posture, gesture, proxemics, and layout, among others. Traditional classroom practices vary not only according to pedagogical approach and to subject matter, but also depending on the media available. 2.5.3
Hybrid Classrooms. In hybrid classrooms, also known as blended environments,
significant portions of the course content and learning interaction take place online, but they also require students to meet for FtF classes. To many, they promise the best of both worlds, offering some of the convenience of online courses without the complete loss of FtF contact. Often, blended learning is related to the provision or use of resources which combine e-learning (electronic) or m-learning (mobile) with other educational resources. Within and outside the educational context, hybrid environments, defined here as spaces that support both FtF and virtual interactions, whether fixed in space or mobile, are becoming increasingly present, with applications to different domains. 2.5.4
Virtual Learning Environments. In online classrooms all the instruction
takes place in the virtual world, either synchronously or asynchronously, accessed either electronically or through mobile platforms. Virtual Learning Environments are learning management software systems that synthesize the functionality of computer-mediated communication software, including features such as: synchronous and asynchronous communication tools, an interface that allows the design and uploading of course material, administrative tools, evaluation tools and student tools (Figure 26). Unlike FtF, communication within VLE is always mediated
90 by the technology of computers, the World Wide Web, telecommunication equipment and wires, and, therefore, limited by their affordances and constraints. Britain and Liber (1999) examine these features based on the conversational model proposed by Laurillard (1993), the Viable System Model, VSM, (Beer, 1981) and some pedagogical criteria (Figure 27). The conversational model focuses on interactions between an individual student and tutor, and it can be used as a point of reference to verify the possibilities that the different tools of the system create for multimodal interaction and communication to occur and to identify which modes of interaction and communication it gives support to.
Features of Virtual Learning Environments
Synchronous and Asynchronous
Discussion forums, internal and external email, real-time chat, video conferencing, web browsing,
Communication
notice boards, bulletin boards (Notice board that supports discussion), whiteboard (notepad), online journal and file exchange.
Productivity Tools
Bookmarks, calendar, scheduling and progress review, orientation and on-line help, searching within course, work offline and synchronize.
Student Involvement Tools
Group work, self-assessment, student community building, student portfolios and homepages.
Administration Tools
Authentication, course authorization, hosted services, registration integration.
Course Delivery Tools
Automated testing and scoring, course management, instructor helpdesk, online grading tools, student tracking, progress tracking.
Curriculum Design Tools
Accessibility compliance, content sharing and reuse, course templates, curriculum management, customized look and feel, instructional design tools, instructional standards compliance.
Figure 26. Virtual Learning Environments Features
91 Some of the semiotic modes of communication supported by common VLE systems are: writing, drawing, facial expressions (talking-heads), gaze, speech and, to some extent, gesture. The problem is that the majority of these modes of communication are only available to instructors and that synchronous communication only occurs via text. Overall, students only have opportunity to use the writing modality within the system, although they can make use of a number of modes that can not be perceived by
TOOLS
the instructor through the system.
What tools
Can the student
Multimedia
Multimedia
Can the tutor use
Can the student
does the
interact with the
authoring tools
authoring tools
the
return to the
teacher have to
teacher through
for creating
for creating
communication
activities and
hand:
the system?
course materials,
course materials,
tools to provide
modify their
Text, video,
Does the student
embedded or
embedded or
feedback to the
actions based on
audio, images?
have multimedia
linkable
linkable
student in the
feedback
authoring
simulation
simulation
context of the
received from the
capabilities? How
programs, testing
programs, testing
students‟
tutor?
does the student
software such as
software such as
activities?
communicate
quiz creation
quiz creation
with the teacher?
programs etc.
programs etc.
Figure 27. Evaluating Virtual Learning Environments Using the Conversational Model Adapted from Britain and Liber, 1999)
2.5.5
Adaptive Learning Environments. Savidis, Paramythis, Akoumianakis and
Stephanidis (1997) propose that the run-time interface transformation process in useradapted interaction can be seen as a combination of two complementary classes of actions initiated by the system: adaptation decisions starting from the initial knowledge of user attribute values, available at start-up - i.e. what the server knows regarding the user
92 prior to interaction, and adaptation decisions that occur due to knowledge of user attribute values inferred during interaction - i.e. assumptions made from user information by the server based on interaction monitoring information. The first behavior is known as adaptability, and reflects the capability of the interface to automatically tailor itself initially to each user. The second behavior is called adaptivity, and refers to the capability of the interface to cope with dynamically changing and emerging user requirements during interaction. A learning environment is considered adaptive if it is capable of: monitoring its users activities; interpreting these activities on the basis of domain-specific models; inferring user requirements and preferences from the interpreted activities, as well as representing these in associated models; and acting upon the available knowledge regarding its users and the subject matter to dynamically facilitate the learning process (Paramythis and Loidl-Reisinger, 2003). Considering a hypothetical Multimodal Adaptive Learning System, with adaptivity and adaptability capabilities, as well as input and output tools, for both instructors and learners, that support speech, gaze, facial expression, gestures, (at least) upper body posture, writing and drawing, some of the implications it brings, in contrast to Virtual Learning Environments, to teaching and learning are: ▪
Increased access to modes of communication;
▪
Increased affordances (physical, sensory, cognitive and functional) for teaching and learning;
▪
Increased opportunities for multimodal collaboration among students;
▪
Increased social presence;
93
2.5.6
▪
Increased media richness; and
▪
Increased user-centeredness.
Multimodal Learning Environments. In multimodal learning environments
(Moreno and Mayer, 2007), learners are able to use both verbal and non-verbal modes to represent content knowledge (Paivio 1986). Multimodal learning environments use a combination of information and communication technologies and multimedia to support courses that can appeal to students‟ different sensory preferences. As a rule, in these environments, learning content is represented in multiple formats. 2.5.7
Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. In Technology-Enhanced
Learning Environments or TELE (Hinton, Gonzalez, Tedder, Karandikar, Behl, Smith, Wilbanks, Humphrey, Gordon, and Lightner 2000), technology is used to enhance and enrich the learning process in a variety of ways and ranges. The definition of TELE is often associated to spaces that require, for instance both hands-on and technology interaction, and customization of lesson plans and activities. From the point of view of this research, all the different learning environments that make some use of technology, from traditional classrooms with little use of technology to full online environments, are variations of TELE with a difference in range of use of technology.
2.6
Information and Communication Technologies
Information and Communication Technology (CT) is a broad category of tools that can potentially enhance classroom learning. This sub-section briefly examines technologies of information and communication. For this purpose, it is divided in two
94 parts: 2.6.1) Defining Information and Communication Technologies, and 2.6.2) Technological Affordances. The following sub-section defines ICT. 2.6.1
Defining Media and Information and Communication Technologies.
Information and Communications Technologies are the tools that enable data to be digitally processed, stored and communicated. It is an umbrella term, embracing both technologies of dissemination (media) and technologies of representation (modes). It refers to communication devices, such as radio, television, cellular phones, computer and network hardware and software, satellite systems, as well as their services and applications, such as videoconferencing and distance learning. ICTs are often spoken of in a particular context, such as ICTs in education, health care, or libraries. The word “technology” derives from the Greek tekhnologia, referring to the systematic treatment of an art or craft; it is the machinery, the equipment, the wiring or the hardware, and the programs or software necessary to run it. According to Ong (1988), technologies may seem like tools or implements, but they are more than simple extensions of human capacity. “Media” relates to how information is disseminated. According to McLuhan (1964), it can be defined as “the extensions of man”, including spoken word, written word, number, clothing, objects, and more familiar media like radio and television. They are the phenomena that use hardware or software to present information to a user. In the author‟s words, “the medium is the message,” meaning that it affects society, human senses, thoughts, perceptions, feelings and values, regardless of content. Communication, media, and technology are often interrelated. For example, the cinema is a medium that uses the technology of cameras and projectors to communicate
95 stories; the World Wide Web is a medium that uses the technology of computers, telecommunication equipment and wires to communicate stories, information, pictures, music, etc. And within formal and informal education, throughout the centuries, media and technology have been used to support teaching and learning, including dissemination of information, communication and interaction. 2.6.2
Technological Affordances. Technological affordances refer to the relationship
between the infrastructure of information and communication technologies and their use made by people (Conole and Dyke, 2004a). They correspond to the relationships between perceiving subjects and technological objects. The authors argue that a clear articulation of technological affordances can enable the understanding of how technologies of dissemination and representation can be most effectively used to support learning and teaching, helping someone who wants to find either the best way to use a tool or the best tool to achieve a goal. Conole and Weller (2007) propose that the concept of affordances potentially offers a means of bridging the gap between technologies and pedagogies. By allowing technologies and pedagogies to be described in conceptual terms, affordances can facilitate the selection of a technology to suit a particular pedagogy, and the selection of a particular pedagogy to suit a desired outcome (Weller, 2007). Some examples of technological affordances are: synchronicity/asynchronicity, immediacy, adaptivity, multimodality, communicability, non-linearity, impermanency, persistence-ability, connectivity, transmission ability, navigation-ability, track-ability, select-ability, storeability, portability, mobility, durability, represent ability, tangibility, visibility, audibility, action-ability and interactivity. Figure 28 presents some examples of technologies of
96 representation and dissemination, lists some of their communication elements and sample affordances.
Information & Communication Technologies
Communication Sample Affordances Elements
Sample Technologies of Representation/Modes
Sensory Delivery Modes
BODY LANGUAGE DRAWING SPEECH PAINTING ALPHABET MORSE CODE
Motor kinesthetic Motor mechanic Auditory oral Motor mechanic Motor mechanic Motor mechanic
Sample Technologies of Dissemination/Media
Communication Directionality
PAPER PRINTING PRESS BOUND BOOK TYPE WRITER PHOTOGRAPHIC CAMERA MICROPHONE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH KINEMATOSCOPE MIMEOGRAPH ELECTRIC TELEPHONE ANSWERING PHONE RADIO TELEVISION PHOTOCOPIER FAX MACHINE FLOPPY DISK EMAIL CELLULAR PHONE PERSONAL COMPUTER COMPUTER MOUSE CD-ROM NETWORK TECHNOLOGY WWW MOSAIC BROWSER CABLE MODEM CHAT MUD DVD MP3 BLOG PALM PILOT WII iPHONE MULTI-INPUT COMPUTER LARGE TOUCH SCREEN WHOLE-BODY INTERFACE
One-way One-way One-way One-way One-way One-way Two-way One-way One-way Two-way One-way One-way One-way One-way One-way One-way Multi-way Two-way One-way One-way One-way Two-way Two-way Two-way Two-way Multi-way Multi-way One-way One-way Multi-way One-way Two-way Two-way Multi-way Two-way Two-way
Figure 28. Technology Affordances Map
Portability, printability, durability, tangibility Reproducibility, preciseness Compact ability, portability, durability, tangibility Readability, timeliness, preciseness Represent ability, reproducibility, portability Represent ability, amplification ability, audibility Transmission ability, preciseness, audibility Reproducibility, amplification ability, visibility, audibility Reproducibility, preciseness, visibility, tangibility Transmission ability, preciseness, audibility Persistence ability, store ability, audibility Transmission ability, audibility, preciseness Transmission ability, visibility, audibility Reproducibility, preciseness, visibility Transmission ability, reproducibility Persistence ability, store ability, digit ability Transmission ability, persistence ability, visibility Transmission ability, preciseness, mobility, audibility Process ability, preciseness, visibility, audibility Select ability, preciseness, tangibility Persistence ability, store ability, digit ability Connectivity, transmission ability, preciseness Connectivity, transmission ability, represent ability Navigation ability, hyperlink ability, virtuallity Connectivity, transmission ability, preciseness Transmission ability, persistence ability, visibility Transmission ability, persistence ability, interactivity Persistence ability, store ability, digit ability Persistence ability, store ability, audibility Transmission ability, persistence ability, represent ability Process ability, preciseness, visibility, audibility Tangibility, preciseness, synchronicity, interactivity Transmission ability, preciseness, mobility, audibility Co-action ability, preciseness, interactivity Tangibility, whole-body action ability, interactivity Tangibility, whole-body action ability, interactivity
97 2.7
User-Centered Design There is no common and well-understood definition for „design‟. In English, the
word „design‟ is both a noun and a verb. As a noun, it means: intention, plan, intent, aim, scheme, plot, motif, basic structure etc., in relation to cunning and deception. As a verb, it means: to concoct something, to simulate, to draft, to sketch, to fashion, to have designs on something etc. According to Friedman (2000), using the term design as a verb or a process description noun, frames design as a dynamic process, making clear the ontological status of design as a subject of philosophical inquiry. This sub-section was further divided into six parts: 2.7.1) defining user-centered design, 2.7.2) interaction design, 2.7.3) communication design, 2.7.4) instructional and pedagogical design, 2.7.5) spatial design, and 2.7.6) systems design. The following subsection discusses the meaning of user-centered design. 2.7.1
Defining User-Centered Design. Understanding users is a pre-requisite for
developing valuable and innovative design solutions. User-centered design, UCD, uses methods such as ethnographic observation to understand modes of interaction, needs, purposes and abilities of users of particular products or systems in the context of each person's natural environment, and uses this information to guide the design process. Amongst the increasing number of tools, methods and approaches that exist for observing and analyzing human behavior and needs are included: ethnographic methods of observation and interview adapted for design, video and photo documentation, participant-aided data gathering, prototype-assisted observation, and analysis methods for organizing data, finding patterns and distilling insights that can lead to actionable and inspiring design directives. UCD is often observant of the different human factors –
98 physical, cognitive, social, cultural and affective. In this line, it tries to design solutions that conform to the possibilities and limitations of the human body, mind, social order, and cultural and emotional contexts. 2.7.2
Interaction Design. Interaction Design is the activity of facilitating interaction
between humans through products, services, and systems. It is concerned to how humans relate to each other and addresses the complexity of creating compelling interactive experiences. Interaction design is related to communication design, and can make use of information architecture principles, and take a user-centered approach. It can also support multiple modes of interaction. Human-computer Interaction (HCI) is closely related to interaction design, but HCI methods tend to be more quantitative, and to focus more on how humans relate to computers or other digital devices. 2.7.3
Communication Design. Communication design refers to the creation of a
systematic language – either visual, auditory, motor or multimodal – with the purpose of creating meaning and communicating content. Graphic design can be considered a subset o communication design, which seeks to create a visual language through graphic elements, such as fonts, colors and layout, to express meaning and communicate content. 2.7.4
Instructional and Pedagogical Design. Instructional design can be described as
a process of systematically developing instructional specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction. It combines the analysis of learners‟ current state of understanding and learning needs, the definition of learning goals, and the development of a delivery system or media-based instrument to meet those needs. Pedagogical design refers to the process of didactic analysis of concepts,
99 structures, representations, learning methods, skills, strategies and learning models in relation to a particular task or domain. Sometimes these two terms are used interchangeably. 2.7.5
Spatial Design. Spatial design refers to processes and methodologies associated
with designing interior and exterior architectural spaces. It looks at human surroundings and interaction to solve spatial problems and provide solutions that accommodate more than just the physical needs. In fact, through the investigation of form, scale, proportion, light, behavior ordering and patterning, organization and movement, it seeks to embrace and address the different human contexts: historical, sociological, cultural, emotional, ecological, philosophical, political and psychological. 2.7.6
System Design. System design relates to the process of defining the architecture,
components, modules, interfaces, and data for a system, in order to meet specified requirements.
100 CHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AND METHODOLOGY
The goal of the present study is develop a methodological framework for capturing learning practice in situ within learning environments with a range of uses of technology; analyzing the data in terms of multimodality; and describing the analysis findings in ways that are informative for designing TELE. At the core of the present investigation is the attempt to understand learners‟ multiple modes of interaction within learning environments that are enhanced by the use of technology. This chapter presents the description of the study and methodology. For this purpose, it is divided into seven parts: 3.1) Research Objectives and Rationale, 3.2) Research Hypotheses, 3.3) Research Questions, 3.4) Research Approach, 3.5) Philosophical Assumptions, 3.6) Procedures of Research and User Groups, and 3.7) Analysis Framework and Units of Analysis. The first sub-section positions the purpose of the study, and gives an overall description and its rationale. The second sub-section identifies the research hypotheses, and the third sub-section presents the research questions. Sub-section four identifies the research approach and sub-section five clarifies the philosophical assumptions that underlie the methodological choices. Sub-section six outlines the general procedures of research, establishes the methods for data collection and analysis, and defines the user groups. The seventh and last sub-section states the expected output, and defines the verification criteria and methods. The following sub-section starts by introducing the primary and secondary goals of the study.
101
3.1
Research Objectives and Rationale
The primary goal of the present study was to develop a methodological framework for bringing multimodality and affordances to the design of TELE. The secondary goals were: to understand learners‟ multiple modes of interaction within learning environments that are enhanced by different ranges of use of technology and link that to learning; to understand users purposes, unacknowledged needs, abilities and modes of interaction within learning environments; to create a model for mapping existent affordances of different learning environments; and to explore the potential innovative use of well-known and state-of-the-art technology to enhance learning. The relevance of the present study is supported by Boyle and Cook (2004, p. 299), who affirm that “empirical observations of learning are what is required in the evolution of new frameworks, tools and systems to support […] systems designers and developers as they envisage new innovative tools to support learning.” In this way, the authors propose looking at learning in situ, and using this understanding to envision new tools and environments to support learning. Conole (2007, p.2), however, points out that “one of the current developments and issues around learning design is: “how can we gather and represent practice and in particular innovative practice?” Thus, the author identifies two problems: first , the need for a process that can allow capturing learning practice; and second, the difficulty in finding innovative learning practices for in situ observation. Jewitt (2005), Bourne and Jewitt (2003), and Jewitt, Kress, Ogborn and Tsatsarelis, (2001a) point to the solution of the referred first problem, stating that the multimodal analysis of the social interaction that occurs around learning activities and contexts
102 facilitates and extends the understanding of the learning that is taking place and the central role of action in it. Consequently, the authors support this by looking at multimodality in situ within learning environments, it is possible to find answers regarding how learning takes place.
3.2
Research Hypotheses
Two main hypotheses were considered in this study: 1) Within the classroom context, pedagogical design, spatial design and technological design help support learning; and 2) The affordances of technology are not fully or close to fully utilized in TELE.
3.3
Research Questions The main questions this research aimed to answer were: 1) What are the learners‟
purposes, unacknowledged needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction within Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments? 2) How are those purposes, needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction accommodated or not within TechnologyEnhanced Learning Environments? 3) What are the existent perceptible and acted upon affordances of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments for communication and learning? 4) How can the perceptible affordances be expanded to match learners‟ needs, and how can they become more easily acted-upon? 5) What well known and state-of-theart technologies can add learning or communicational value to learning environments?
3.4
Philosophical Assumptions
103 The philosophical assumptions that drove the methodological choices of the present study embrace: theory of knowledge that informs the research - sub-divided into ontology, epistemology and methodology - and theoretical perspective. Several dichotomies are available in the literature to identify research philosophical orientations. It is a fact, however, that between each pair of dichotomies rests a continuum, within which a study is usually situated. It is considered erroneous, therefore, to affirm that a study is either positivist or anti-positivist, for instance. Rather, it can be said that it leans more towards one end than the other. With this in mind, in relation to the first category or theory of knowledge, the ontology describing the adopted view of reality, this study leans more towards nominalism or subjectivism, which assumes that objective realities can not be found, since apparent truths are created by individual cognition and social transmission of these ideas (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The epistemology, likewise, leans more towards the understanding that knowledge about the social world can not be proved or disproved, but only held by an individual. For this reason, focus is given to uncovering the individuals‟ subjective knowledge of the world, known as relativism or anti-positivism. An interpretivist or ideographic methodology is more closely identified with this study, in opposition to positivist or nomothetic, implying that reservations are made regarding the assumption that the researcher is objective. In reference to the theoretical perspective, the sociocultural paradigm best describes the assumptions taken with regard to the learning process during the research, which means an emphasis on the understanding of the engagement of human beings with their world, as well as their historical, cultural and social perspective (Creswell, 2003), which is typical in user-centered research.
104 Some of the strengths of qualitative research are using participants‟ own categories of meaning, being able to describe complex phenomena, providing individual case information, conducting cross-case comparisons and analysis, and providing an understanding and description of people‟s personal experiences of phenomena. Some of the weaknesses of qualitative research are, for example, not allowing generalization of knowledge to other people or other settings, consuming more time to collect and analyze the data, and having lower credibility.
3.5
Research Approach
Regarding the research design, the present study employed a qualitative research approach, since it was mainly concerned with in-depth understanding of learners‟ behavior and the reasons behind it.
3.6
Procedures of Research and User Group
In reference to the general procedures of research (Figure 29), strategies of inquiry or traditions of inquiries, field research procedures, with emphasis on ethnography, were adopted. Notice that the term methodology is also commonly used to describe these procedures (Creswell, 2003). Nevertheless, the term was avoided here to prevent confusion, since it was already used as a sub-category of philosophical assumptions.
105
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
INFORMS
1. Secondary Research
2. Field Research
GROUNDED
Analysis Unit
THEORY
ANALYSIS
2.2. Pilot Study
ITERATION
MULTIMODAL
Analysis Unit
ANALYSIS
Analysis Unit
2.1. Open-Ended Interview
1. Models of Analysis
LEADS
2. Methodological Framework
MULTIMODAL
Analysis Unit
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS ITERATION
MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS
MULTIMODAL
Analysis
3. Archival Material Study
ANALYSIS of Research Unit Figure 14: General Procedures
Data Collection
4. Dissertation
Analysis Unit
Figure 15: General Procedures of Research
Data Collection
3. TELE Sample Scenario
ANALYSIS ITERATION
Data Analysis
Data Analysis
Analysis Unit
2.4. Complementary Vídeo Ethnography
Analysis Unit
TO
2.3. Main Vídeo Ethnography
Intended Outcome
Intended
Outcome Figure 29. General Procedures of Research
In relation to the methods for data collection and analysis, the following techniques were included (Figure 30): literature review, open ended interview, pilot study, video ethnography (main and complementary) and follow up interview, archival material study, study of online classroom pedagogical design, study of spatial design and
106 technological affordances of learning environments, and learning styles survey. The data collection phase started with secondary research, covering the review of the literature in the
topics:
Interaction,
Communication,
Multimodality,
Learning,
Learning
Environments, Information and Communication Technologies, and User-Centered Design. The next steps refer to data collection in the open-ended interviews, pilot study, main and complementary ethnographic studies, study of spatial design and technological affordances of learning environments, study of online classroom archival material, and learning styles survey. The field research started with exploratory semi-structured interviews with 11 graduate students from different academic departments, corresponding to about 2 hours of audio data, and a pilot video ethnographic study within a graduate Design traditional classroom, corresponding to 3 hours of video data and 1 hour of audio data. The goal was to identify categories of meaning for observation during the main and complementary video ethnographies and cross-case comparisons. The two ethnographic studies (Figure 31) consisted of investigating the categories that emerged from the interviews and pilot study, including: multimodality, use of time, space and technology, and pedagogical design, focusing on learning and on learners‟ unacknowledged needs, purposes, abilities and modes of interaction. The first or main ethnographic study looked at 8 graduate students taking both traditional and online classes within the Computer Science graduate program, corresponding to about 24 hours of video data from the observations and 2 hours of audio data from the interviews. The second, or complementary video ethnographic study, looked at 11 graduate students taking traditional classes within the Design graduate program, corresponding to about 40 hours of video data and 3 hours of
107 Interview
Pilot
Video Ethnography Traditional
pilot study, 6 traditional/online
8 Computer
7 Computer
Science, 5 Design
Science
Hands-On, 6
CS, 5 traditional
Spaces
6 online classes (only
15 social
teacher is seen) from
interaction spaces
Online
11 exploratory semi-structured, 1
Archival
Design Lecture
different subjects (selected courses attempted make some
Design Hands-on, 5
innovative use of
traditional Design
technology, beyond the
Lecture
lecture only common model)
Total = 28
Total = 1
Total = 26 observations varying from
Total = 6 tapes of 3:00 hr
Total = 15 spaces
interviews varying
observation (3 hr
0:20 to 4:00 hr each (totaling 64 hr of
each (18 hr of video)
(48 pictures, 2 hr of
from 0:20 to 1:00 hr
of video)
video)
video)
each (totaling 6 hr of audio)
Total = 28 interviews (6hr of audio) + 27 observations & 6 tapes (85 hr of video) + pictures = 31 students; 14 instructors
Figure 30. Research Protocols
audio data. The archival material consisted of 18 hours of video data from 6 different online classes. During the two video ethnographies, the students were observed from the beginning to end of a class session and the data was analyzed in several layers, in order to identify patterns of multimodal interaction and compare the affordances of the different learning environments for communication and learning. During the analysis of the data phase, a qualitative approach was utilized, including the methodological framework proposed by Norris (2004) and adapted by
108
Figure 31. Main Video Ethnography
Moura (2006a, 2006b) for the analysis of multimodal interaction (Figure 32). After analysis, the data was validated and interpreted. The dissertation included visual pictures of the procedures in the study and it described a methodology for bringing multimodality and affordances to design of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environment. The study of learning spaces explored spatial and technological affordances. And the study of the archival material of six different online classrooms from different academic departments looked at pedagogical design and explored their affordances for communication and learning.
109
DEFINITION OF COMMUNICATIVE
ANALYSIS OF
ANALYSIS OF
OVERALL
MODES HEURISTIC UNITS
INDIVIDUAL UNITS
INTERRELATED UNITS
ANALYSIS
OF EACH SELECTED
Vocalics Volume Rate Pitch Pausing Silence
Physical appearance Hairstyle Clothing Cosmetics Fragrance
Gaze
Proxemics
Head movement
Gaze
Spoken Language
ALL CUSTERS TOGETHER
Posture
SAMPLE CUSTER ONE
Kinesics Hand gesture Facial expression Body movement Body posture Gaze Gait
Hand Gesture
Posture SAMPLE CUSTER TWO
Spoken language
SELECTED UNITS FOR SEPARATE ANALYSIS
EMBODIED UNITS
HIGHER LEVEL ACTION
Body Movement
Hand gesture
Print
Head movement
Body movement
Spoken Language
Proxemics
DISEMBODIED UNITS
Haptics
Object handling
Layout
Chronemics
Artifacts
Print
Environment
Figure 32. Methodological Framework for Analysis of Multimodal Interaction
110 Finally, a learning styles survey, known as VARK (Fleming, 1995a, 1995b), was given to a group of 30 Design students in one of the observed classrooms. The goal was to identify students‟ preferences regarding sensorial modalities for intake of information. The examination of the results proved, at the end, that the use of these surveys was not useful, since they failed to inform, together with the identification of a particular sensorial preference, the particular behaviors of the student in rich multimodal expression. For this reason, the application of the surveys was discontinued and the results were not included in the analysis chapter. The choice for graduate students as the focus of observation is related to the presence of a wider range of uses of technology, from more traditional classrooms with little use of technology to full online classrooms. And the choice for Computer Science and Design students is related to the familiarity of these students with technology and even expertise with their use. This could potentially make their personal and learning activities more related to innovative use of media and technology, and lead to opportunities of observation of innovative practices.
3.7
Analysis Framework and Units of Analysis
A study of multimodal interaction within technology enhanced classroom settings requires a number of interdependent concepts, which can not be found within a single field. The perspective of a single theoretical field can limit explanations about the observed data and the answers to the research questions. For this reason, the analysis framework is based on interdisciplinary research concepts, mainly from the fields of Education, Communication, Computer Science and Design - such as the concepts of
111 communication, interaction, multimodality, affordances and learning. This pool of concepts is used as a matrix that enables identifying patterns of multimodal interactions, needs, purposes and abilities among learners, and analyzing how different learning environments and their features afford or constrain communication and learning, in order to propose a methodology for designing TELE. These different theoretical perspectives need, however, to form a logical and coherent theoretical framework, linking the various levels and concepts coming from these various fields. Such link becomes available through:
a general theoretical definition of the studied phenomenon identifying which qualities of the phenomenon are to be studied in the chosen method. Theories and results from other fields can be extrapolated and used as an explicit background for the analysis and interpretation (Rostvall and West, 2005, p.4).
The general theoretical perspective that offers a foundation to the present research is given by the user-centered design approach, which poses questions regarding the user, the task to be accomplished and the environment where the user will act (Faulkneur, 1998). In addition, it seeks to identify users‟ needs, purposes, abilities and modes of interaction, based on theoretical and user studies, and grounds subsequent design decisions on these requirements (Noyes and Baber, 1999). Each research procedure sought to answer a different set of research questions (Figure 33). In the present research, the main group of users was graduate learners taking
112
RESEARCH PROCEDURES Field Research (Interview with 11 graduate students from a variety of fields)
Pilot Study and FollowUp Interview (One traditional Design graduate classroom observation and follow up interview)
Main Video Ethnography and Follow-Up Interview (Fifteen observations – 8 in traditional and 7 in online classrooms, and 6 follow up interviews)
Complementary Video Ethnography and FollowUp Interview (Eleven observations of students, and 10 follow up interviews) Archival Material of Online Courses
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
FOCUS
UNITS OF ANALYSIS
What are the learners‟ purposes, unacknowledged needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction within Technology Enhanced Learning Environments? How are those multiple purposes, needs, abilities and modes of interaction accommodated or not within these environments? What are the existent perceptible and acted-upon affordances of these environments for communication and learning? How can the perceptible affordances be expanded to match learners‟ needs and how can they become more easily acted-upon?
Perception of learning process,
Statements, stories, metaphors.
What are the teachers and learners purposes, unacknowledged needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction within Technology Enhanced Learning Environments? How are those purposes, needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction accommodated or not within these environments? What are the perceived affordances of these environments? What are the acted-upon affordances of these environments?
Multimodality in learning,
What are the learners‟ purposes, unacknowledged needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction within Technology Enhanced Learning Environments? How are those purposes, needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction accommodated or not within these environments?
Match/Mismatch of learning preferences and needs (for instance, need for visual input of information, instead of verbal), Relation fun/learning.
Cycles of learning proposed by Oliver and Conole (1presentation or one-way delivery of information, 2communication or two-way narrative construction, 3practice or hands-on activity, and 4- assessment or feedback on performance).
Instances of action (or higher/intermediate/lower level actions, as defined by Norris).
Perception of learning process.
Statements, stories, metaphors.
Engagement strategy,
Instances of action (or higher/intermediate/lower level actions, as defined by Norris).
Quality of multimodal action (intensity and density), Cycles of learning. Perception of learning process.
Statements, stories, metaphors.
What are the learners‟ purposes, unacknowledged needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction within Technology Enhanced Learning Environments? How are those purposes, needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction accommodated or not within these environments?
Pedagogical design; Affordances for learning, communication and disciplinary content.
Instances of action (or higher/intermediate/lower level actions, as defined by Norris).
What are the affordances of online courses acted upon by instructors?
Pedagogical design; Affordances for learning, communication and disciplinary content.
What are the affordances for communication and learning of the proposed pedagogical design that can be perceived and acted-upon by students? Learning Spaces
Learning style,
Multimodality in learning, Cycles of learning. Use of technology
Cycles of learning. Use of technology
What are the available features of learning Affordances for learning, environments? What are the affordances of communication and disciplinary learning environments for communication and content. learning? How do existent affordances meet learners observed multimodal needs? How do existent affordances support the different cycles of learning and peer interaction? Which stateof-the-art or traditional technologies could be added to help meet unmet needs? How spatial design can be improved to support communication and learning?
Figure 33. Research Procedures Explained
Instances of action (or higher/intermediate/lower level actions, as defined by Norris).
Screen captures and system textual descriptions.
113 classes in spaces enhanced by technology, mainly in the Computer Science and Design departments - they were the target of the video ethnographic studies, and graduate students from a variety of academic departments were the target of the field research interviews. The remaining users were teachers, in the case of the pilot, ethnographic studies and archival material. The tasks of the pilot study, ethnographies, interviews, study of online classrooms, and study of spaces were: to interact multimodally and learn. And the environment for all the three research procedures was: a classroom or other spaces mediated by different ranges of technology, like a computer lab or home. The intention to observe the use and to explore the potential innovative use of well known and state-of-the-art technologies, to map their affordances for learning, and to identify ways to enhance learning through their use, existed in the beginning of the study. This particular protocol aimed to address the question: What well known and state-of-the-art technologies can add learning or communicational value to learning environments? This procedure, however, was not carried out due to limitations in time and to difficulty in finding opportunities to observe innovative use of technology. The results of the analysis were discussed and interpreted within the wider perspective of the user-centered design approach and the socio-cultural paradigm, which best describes the assumptions taken with regard to the learning process during the research. The entire process of analysis and of categorization of data was documented, and illustrated whenever relevant, seeking to provide clear links between data and interpretations, and also revealing more of the multimodal dynamics of classroom interaction. The building of the methodological framework for designing TELE arose from the data analysis, and this process was also discussed and visually represented.
114 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH ANALYSIS
This chapter goes over the many dimensions of the findings that can inform the methodological framework for bringing multimodality and affordances to design of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments: 1) Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design; 2) Spatial Design, Use of Space and Higher, Intermediate or Lower Level Actions within Traditional and Online Classrooms; 3) Available Media and Technology, and Their Use within Traditional and Online Classrooms; 4) Multimodality and Learning Needs and Abilities within Traditional and Online Classrooms; and 5) Purposes, Desires and Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments. Each of these sub-sections is, in the synthesis chapter, connected to one aspect or model within the overall methodological framework. The links between the models introduced here and the complete framework are clearly identified in that section. Because the focus of this study is proposing a methodological framework for bringing multimodality and affordances to design of TELE that arises from data analysis, this chapter focuses on the analysis process used to inform the framework it seeks to build. The data analysis sets within these sub-sections are very large, and while only a partial summary analysis and selected fragments of examples are presented here, more comprehensive samples within the different sets of data and analysis can be found in the appendices. Due to the large amount of data, however, the appendices do not contain the entirety of the data and analysis sets, but only the most representative parts of selected sets of data that were found most informative to the development of the intended framework.
115 Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design, or sub-section 4.1, presents the summary and analysis of part of the data collected during the main and complementary video-ethnographic studies. It focuses on the use of time and cycles of learning – presentation or one-way delivery of information, discussion or two-way narrative guidance and construction, activity or hands-on practice and performance, and evaluation or feedback on performance. Based on this information, it identifies differences in class pedagogical approach. Spatial Design, Proxemics, Use of Space, Higher, Intermediate or Lower Level Actions, and Missed Opportunities for Action within Traditional and Online Classrooms, or sub-section 4.2, also presents the summary and analysis of part of the data collected during the main and complementary video-ethnographic studies. This second sub-section focuses on spatial design, on the instructors and students proxemics and use of space, on higher, intermediate or lower level actions taken, and on students missed opportunities for action. It also examines the underlying educational view of the institution, and impact of space, whether physical or virtual, on interaction and learning. Available Media, Modes and Technology, and their Use within Traditional and Online Classrooms, or sub-section 4.3, presents the summary and analysis of another part of the data collected during the main and complementary video-ethnographic studies. Additionally it introduces data from another protocol: the archival material from six online graduate courses. This third sub-section focuses on contrasting the use of media, modes and technology on traditional and online classrooms. Multimodality and Learning Styles, Abilities and Needs within Traditional and Online Classrooms, or sub-section 4.4, presents the summary and analysis of part of the
116 data collected during the main and complementary video-ethnographic studies as well. This fourth sub-section focuses on students‟ multiple modes of interaction within the four cycles of learning, and learning styles, abilities and learning needs within traditional and online classrooms. It connects learning styles, multiple modes of interaction, learning needs, and implications for pedagogical design. Purposes, Desires and Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments, or sub-section 4.5, presents the interview data from the open-ended interviews, and main and complementary video ethnography follow up interviews. This last sub-section focuses on the purposes, needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction of learners as identified by them. It examines the categories that emerge from the students answers, targeting at the process of analysis. The following table 2 clearly identifies the different sets of data that were collected and analyzed in this research. And it will be a source of reference throughout this and following chapters, helping to better point to the source to which each analysis section is making reference and to avoid long name repetitions.
Table 2 Identification of the Research Sets of Data Data Set
Description
Group 1 or Computer Science
Eight different Computer Science graduate students –
traditional classroom graduate
S1 to S8 – taking five different traditional classes, and
students from the main video
observed on eight different days during class time. The
ethnographic study and
interviews occurred right after each observation.
117 Data Set
Description
follow-up interviews
[Remarks: The expression „traditional class‟ is used in opposition to „online class.‟ Most of the students from Group 1 also took online classes, and, therefore, are also part of group 4].
Group 2 or Design hands-
Five different Design graduate students – T1 to T5 – taking
on traditional workshop
one traditional class, and observed on five different days
classroom graduate
during class time, and two times during group activity
students from the
outside the class. The interviews occurred right after each
complementary video
observation.
ethnographic study and follow-up interviews Group 3 or Design lecture
Six different Design graduate students – T6 to T11 – taking
traditional classroom
one traditional class, and observed on six different days
graduate students from the
during class time, and three times during individual
complementary video
activity outside the class. The interviews occurred right
ethnographic study and
after each observation.
follow-up interviews
118 Data Set
Description
Group 4 or Computer
Seven different Computer Science graduate students – S1
Science online classroom
to S7 – taking seven different online classes, and observed
graduate students from the
on seven different days during either synchronous or
main video ethnographic
asynchronous online class time. All these students were
study and follow-up
also observed within group 1. The interviews occurred
interviews
right after each observation.
Group 5 or field research
Eleven different graduate students – F1 to F11 – from a
semi-structured interviews
variety of academic departments (Technical
with graduate students
Communication, Design, Mechanical Engineering, and
from a variety of academic Business) with some past experience with online learning, departments
who were interviewed on eleven different occasions.
Group 6 or archival
Six instructors teaching online classes (Manufacturing
material instructors (and
Technology, Environmental Management, Information
students – when visible or
Technology, Financial Markets, Computer Science,
audible on the video
Communication and Health Physics) and about 10 of their
material)
students who were examined on the archival video material.
4.1
Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design
This sub-section looks at use of time within traditional and online classrooms. The goal is to try to understand how instructors allocate time to different teaching
119 methods or strategies, and the types of interaction and opportunities for learning that these create. In addition, it looks at how students made use of their time during after-class homework activity, and the implications for learning. Oliver and Conole (1999) identified four main types of teaching strategies: 1) delivery, 2) discussion, 3) activity and 4) feedback. Here, these four strategies are named: 1) one-way delivery of information, or presentation, 2) two-way narrative guidance and construction, or discussion, 3) hands-on practice and performance, or activity, and 4) feedback on performance, or assessment. And because each one of these is an iterative cycle of interactions offering different possibilities for learning, they are herein characterized as different learning cycles. The balanced combination of these four main learning cycles, through their affordances, helps contributing to the learning experience of students. By looking at use of classroom time in combination with these strategies and how they support learning behaviors of students, it is possible to identify differences in pedagogical approach and design. Teaching strategies or methods, and use of time, resources and space are a few of the elements that are part of the pedagogical design of a class. A variety of teaching strategies are available, and each one can be associated to one of the four categories of learning cycles for enabling specific types of interaction and supporting a different type of learning experience. Lecture, for instance, is a teaching method that supports teacherstudent(s) one-way delivery of information, one of the four learning cycles. Depending on the number of students, size of classroom and settings, a lecture might only afford students to passively listen to the instructor. And depending on the modes and media used, and the speaking style of the lecturer - for instance, a long lecture, with poor
120 graphic support and a monotone speaker - it might only afford most students to listen with boredom during the first hour and to fall asleep on the second, with very few opportunities for learning anything, except for those rare that are really self-motivated and, therefore, learn despite of the instructor or circumstances. In general, one-waydelivery of information mostly affords students to listen and take notes, and in some cases, to ask and answer questions. Discussion or two-way narrative guidance and construction, within the learning environment and in association with it, can take place between instructor and student(s), or student(s) and student(s). Laurillard, Stratfold, Luckin, Plowman and Taylor (2000, p.6) define narrative as “a process of both discerning and imposing structured meanings which can be shared and articulated”. Mandler (1984) affirms that narrative is deeply embedded in human learning, providing an organizing structure for new experiences and knowledge. From the student‟s point of view, the term „narrative guidance‟ refers to the more teacher-controlled form of learning, whereas the term „narrative construction‟ refers to the more student-controlled form (Plowman, Luckin, Laurillard, Stratfold and Taylor, 1999). Through two-way-narrative guidance and construction, students have more opportunities for making sense of the content presented during the one-way delivery of information cycle. In general, discussion, or two-way narrative guidance and construction, either between teacher and student(s), or amongst students, mostly affords continuous speaking, listening, and both asking and answering questions. That is, it supports iterative construction of meaning, with variations on the level of speaker control and hierarchy of the relationship.
121 Practice or hands-on activity, and performance provides opportunities for narrowing the gap between theory and practice, between knowing something in theory and knowing how to translate the understanding into action and apply it to real world contexts. Theory-only classes typically result in little skill development and negligible transfer of understanding to practice, thus limiting successful learning (Showers, 1990) and long-term retention of knowledge. In general, practice or hands-on activity and performance afford bringing theory into practice through iterative experimentation, exploration, repetition, testing, ownership of content, presentation, and enactment. Assessment or feedback on performance is a continuous process that ideally provides opportunities for students to improve their learning. It is based upon agreed criteria or educational expectations which the student is, supposedly, aware of, involving an ongoing process of collecting and interpreting data for the purpose of improving understanding. Besides informing students about their progress, assessment can help instructors make informed decisions at different stages of the learning process, and adjust teaching accordingly. In essence, assessment and learning should be seen as two sides of the same coin, so that an assessment exercise also allows students to learn from it as well. The challenge, for both teachers and students, is to shift the assessment paradigm to embrace the concept of assessment as more than a terminal event. There are three different types of classroom assessment that can be used depending on the intended purpose: 1) diagnostic, 2) formative, and 3) summative. The first type, diagnostic assessment, is used to gather information about what students already know and are able to do. It provides a way for teachers to decide on a course of action, using existing knowledge to build upon. It also allows for identification of gaps or
122 misconceptions in prior learning. The second type of assessment, formative assessment, occurs throughout the learning process, providing multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate attainment of identified targeted goals without concerns about grading. It provides ongoing direction for improvement and/or adjustment in learning and instruction. An important element of this type of assessment is feedback. Feedback, which can be positive or negative, makes the biggest impact when it occurs during the learning process. Positive feedback improves confidence, and increases motivation. It can help students to be able to deal with the more negative aspects of their performance. Negative feedback, when given in a constructive way, can have the greatest impact on changing behavior and improving performance. The third type of assessment, summative assessment, is used for the purpose of making final judgments about learning and teaching effectiveness. It provides a look at student performance as well as an opportunity to evaluate teaching practices at the end of the teaching-learning experience and, for this reason, it drives the decision making process. It evaluates the extent to which a student has achieved the end educational outcomes or objectives, contributing to the grading. Besides being organized according to intended purpose, classroom assessment can also be categorized according to the author of the assessment, including: teacher assessment, self-assessment, and peer assessment. Teacher assessment is the most common one, but self assessment is perhaps the most powerful kind of assessment, for it gives students a greater responsibility for their own learning. Through self assessment students can become independent learners, and learn to set their own goals. Peer assessment is also very useful because it teaches students to assess the work of other
123 students objectively, also helping them get insights into their own work through this structured exchange. In general, assessment or feedback on performance affords positive and negative criticism, clarification of educational goals and reflection on them, review and reconstruction of meanings, learning from one‟s and other student‟s successes and mistakes, and planning for new learning activities. By choosing or not to spend time with these four types of teaching strategies, specific opportunities for learning are created by the instructor. The analysis of use of time in a classroom can reveal the type of learning the instructor is supporting and emphasizing, depending on the teaching strategies chosen and the amount of time given for each. The prominence of one of the four learning cycles over another – either one way delivery of information, two-way narrative guidance and construction, hands-on practice and performance, and feedback on performance – or the particular combination of these, can help identify the differences in pedagogical approach and design. It is also important to highlight that the use of time in traditional and online classrooms can be very distinct, even when the same class is simultaneously taught FtF and online. Traditional classroom learning usually occurs on scheduled times and has specific durations and locations. Online classroom learning, in contrast, can be taken at any time and location, and, although online classes might have specific durations, the student can choose to take them for a longer or shorter period of time, by, for example, viewing multiple times or only watching small sections of the classes. In this way the duration of an online class is, ultimately, determined by the student, and not the instructor. The duration of traditional classes observed varied from 1:07 to 2:34, and the online sessions varied from 0:39 to 2:18.
124 This sub-section was further divided into two parts, which group and contrast the main findings from the analysis into two groups: 4.1.1) Use of Time and Cycles of Learning within Lecture Graduate Classrooms; and 4.1.2) Use of Time and Cycles of Learning within Hands-On Graduate Classroom. 4.1.1
Use of Time and Cycles of Learning within Lecture Graduate Classrooms.
This sub-section explores the use of time and cycles of learning within traditional and online lecture classrooms, including groups one, three and four (Table 2). Showing a schematic quantitative analysis of the interaction, figures 34, 35, and 36 present the use of time and cycles of learning within students S1 and S2 group one classes, students T6 and T11 group three classes, and students S3 and S6 group four classes. In the case of group one classes: 93% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information – with the minimum at 74% and the maximum at 100%; 7% of the time was dedicated to two way-narrative guidance (in all cases not including narrative construction) – with the minimum at 0% and the maximum at 26%; no time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance; and no time was dedicated to feedback on performance. Thus, the five instructors of the eight different Computer Science graduate classes opted to place emphasis on one-way delivery of information by selecting unanimously lecture as the teaching strategy, supported either by a Slide Show presentation displayed through a multimedia projector from the instructor‟s laptop to a large screen or to TV monitors, or by hand written notes on white boards or yellow pad. The number of students in the classes varied from about 12 to 30, and even when the size of the class or number of students was relatively small, all the instructors opted to spend
125 very little time with two-way-narrative construction, no time with hands-on practice and performance, and no time with feedback on performance.
Computer Science Traditional Graduate Classroom USE OF TIME
S1 6:20 6:25
Entering the classroom Lecture, white boards, slides, questions and answers Pause Lecture, white boards, slides, questions and answers End
8:12 8:17 9:04
STATISTICS
Total class time
2:34
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
2:24 0:10 0:00 0:00
93% 7% 0% 0%
Nr of students Nr seats
30 200
TIMELINE 6:25
8:12/8:17
2
Transition
One-way (sprinkled with Two-way narrative construction)
2
Transition
9:04
One-way (sprinkled with Two-way narrative construction)
USE OF TIME
S2 1:45 1:50 3:10
Entering the classroom Lecture, slides, and questions End
Transition
STATISTICS
Total class time
1:20
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
1:17 0:03 0:00 0:00
96% 4% 0% 0%
Nr of students Nr seats
12 30
TIMELINE 1:50
Transition
3:10
2 One-way (sprinkled with Two-way narrative construction)
Transition
Figure 34. S1 and S2 Computer Science Traditional Graduate Classrooms Use of Time and Learning Cycles
126 Design Lecture Graduate Classroom USE OF TIME
T6 6:15 6:25 8:10 8:20 9:15
STATISTICS
Entering the classroom Lecture and slides Pause Lecture and slides End
Total class time
2:40
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
2:00 0:40 0:00 0:00
75% 25% 0% 0%
Nr of students Nr seats
19 56
TIMELINE 6:25
8:10/8:20
Transition
9:15
One-way (teacher-student)
Transition
One-way (teacher-student)
Transition
USE OF TIME
T11 6:15 6:35 7:40 7:50 8:30
STATISTICS
Entering the classroom Lecture, slides and homework feedback Pause Lecture and slides End
Total class time
2:21
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
1:20 0:10 0:00 0:15
76% 10% 0% 14%
Nr of students Nr seats
19 56
TIMELINE 6:35
Transition
7:40/7:50
+ One-way + Feedback (teacher-student)
8:30
Transition One-way Transition (teacher-student)
Figure 35. T6 and T11 Design Lecture Classroom Use of Time and Learning Cycles
In the case of group three classes: 82% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information, 11% of the time was dedicated to two way-narrative guidance, no time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance (during the class), and 7%
127 of the time was dedicated to feedback on performance. Thus, the instructor of the six Design lecture graduate classes opted to place emphasis on one-way delivery of information (all of which corresponded to teacher-student one-way delivery of information and not student-teacher or student-student one-way delivery of information) by selecting lecture as the teaching strategy, which was supported by a Slide Show presentation projected on the large corner screen. In the case of group four classes: 100% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information, no time was dedicated to two way-narrative construction, no time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance, and no time was dedicated to feedback on performance. Thus, the five different instructors of the eight Computer Science graduate online classes all opted to place emphasis on one-way delivery of information by mainly selecting lecture, usually teacher-student, as the teaching strategy, supported by slides or by hand-writing, sketches, and graphs on a yellow pad or white board. The option for emphasizing one-way delivery of information placed the learner in the passive role. Only in one occasion, online students watched classroom students‟ presentations, instead of instructor lecture, and saw classroom students‟ interaction with the instructor, in the form of questions and answers and feedback on performance. Within groups one, three and four, one example is highlighted: S2‟s class within group one (Figure 34). The instructor started the class at 1:50 p.m. and ended it at 3:10 p.m. - totaling 1:20 hours of class, where about 1:17 hours were dedicated to one-way delivery of information and less than 3 minutes were dedicated, all together, to two-way narrative guidance, not including narrative construction. There were about 12 students in the class, sitting in a small classroom with about 25-30 seats. During the one-way
128 Computer Science Online Graduate Classroom USE OF TIME
S3 6:35 6:40 7:55
Entering the computer lab Lecture End
STATISTICS
Total class time
1:15
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
1:15 0:00 0:00 0:00
100% 0% 0% 0%
Total class time
2:18
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
2:18 0:00 0:00 0:00
100% 0% 0% 0%
TIMELINE 6:40
7:55
Transition
One-way
Transition
USE OF TIME
S6 10:00 10:05 12:23
Entering the computer lab Lecture End
STATISTICS
TIMELINE 10:05
Transition
12:23
One-way
Transition
Figure 36. S3 and S6 Computer Science Online Classrooms Use of Time and Learning Cycles
delivery of information part of the class, the main teaching strategy adopted by the instructor was lecture, supported by a Slide Show presentation that was displayed from the instructor‟s laptop to the two TV monitors on the side walls of the classroom. Interspersed in the instructor‟s presentation were a few questions from the instructor to the students, but no questions from the students to the instructor about the subject. These questions, sprinkled throughout the class, added, all together, to less than 4 minutes, and
129 the instructor answered most of them herself. In this way, the observed S2‟s Computer Science traditional class exhibited the presence of only two cycles. In total, 96% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information, 4% of the time was dedicated to two way-narrative guidance (not including narrative construction), no time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance, and no time was dedicated to feedback on performance. Considering the affordances of each learning cycle and the time dedicated to each, it can be affirmed that the observed class mainly supported the students to receive content by: listening to the instructor‟s lecture, and watching the Slide Show images and text through the TV monitors. In addition, it afforded students to take notes with pen and paper. The students had no personal technologies at hand; so, no students typed notes. In regard to the specific behavior of S2 and the affordances perceived by the student, the following can be affirmed. One-way delivery of information in the format of lecture with slides afforded S2 to listen and take a few notes with pen and paper, while shaking his legs frenetically and continuously to release energy and keep focused. He hardly made eye contact with the instructor. Instead, S2 looked to the TV monitors that displayed the instructor‟s slides and talking head image. Two-way narrative guidance in the format of instructor questions and students answers did not result in any interactions for this student. Within these three groups, the option of the instructors for emphasizing, almost exclusively, one-way delivery of information placed the learner in the passive role. The very small time given to two-way narrative guidance limited the opportunities for students to construct meaning iteratively. The absence of hands-on activity and
130 performance during the class may have prevented students from immediately linking theory and practice. And the absence of feedback on performance during the class may have prevented students to immediately understand their progress and the instructor, to adjust teaching. 4.1.2
Use of Time and Cycles of Learning within the Design Hands-On Graduate
Workshop. This sub-section explores the use of time and cycles of learning within group two (table 2) classes. Figure 37 presents the use of time and cycles of learning within students T4 and T5‟s classes. In the case of group two classes: 65% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information, 10% of the time was dedicated to two way-narrative construction, 19% of the time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance, and 6% of the time was dedicated to feedback on performance. Thus, the instructor of the five Design graduate classes opted to place emphasis on one-way delivery of information (from which about 55% corresponded to teacher-student one-way delivery of information and 10% corresponded to student-teacher/student one-way delivery of information) by selecting lecture, mainly teacher-student, as the teaching strategy, which was supported by sketches, hand-writing, computer files and web pages projected on the large corner screen. The option for emphasizing one-way delivery of information placed the learner, during the delivery section of the class, in the passive role. A part of this one-way delivery of information cycle, the 10% mentioned above, was dedicated to students‟ presentations, but because most students were watching while a group of students was presenting, most of the students in the class still remained in the passive role during this
131 Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop USE OF TIME
T4 8:50 9:00 10:0 0 12:0 012: 15
STATISTICS
Entering the classroom Lecture, sketches and handwriting Activity and conversation Pause Student presentation and instructor feedback End
Total class time
3:45
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
2:00 0:23 0:59 0:23
54% 10% 26% 10%
Nr of students Nr seats
1:00
48 56
TIMELINE 9:00
11:00
Transition
11:45 12:00
+ Transition One-way + Feedback Transition (student-student) (teacher-student)
+ Hands-on + Two-way (teacher-student)
One-way
USE OF TIME
T5 8:50 9:00 10:3 0 11:1 511: 30
1:00
STATISTICS
Entering the classroom Lecture, sketches and handwriting Activity and conversation Pause Student presentation and instructor feedback End
Total class time
3:45
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
2:31 0:23 0:40 0:11
67% 10% 18% 5%
Nr of students Nr seats
1:00
48 56
TIMELINE 9:00
Transition
10:30
One-way (teacher-student)
11:30 11:45
+ Hands-on + Two-way Transition (student-student) (teacher-student)
1:00
+ One-way + Feedback
Transition
Figure 37. T4 and T5 Design Hands-On Workshop Use of Time and Learning Cycles
section of the class. An exception to that are those students who asked questions during this time period, leading to two-way narrative guidance or construction, and, therefore, to an active role. The number of students in the classes varied from about 46 to 50, and
132 despite the number being comparatively large, in relation to the amount of students found within groups 1, 3 and 4, the instructor opted to spend time with two-way-narrative construction, hands-on practice and performance, and feedback on performance. The presence of the other learning cycles, even in small proportions, already made the observed Design classroom significantly more alive and active, from the student point of view, than all those from groups one, three and four – which added to 16 classrooms and 20 observations. By giving time to hands-on activity and performance during the class, including the prototyping activities and the presentation preparation and performance, opportunities were created for students to link theory and practice. That also helped generate opportunities for students to construct meaning iteratively with their peers through two-way narrative construction. The presence of feedback on performance intertwined with the student presentations, which was related to the hands-on activity, enabled the students to understand their progress and the instructor on to adjust teaching. Within group two classroom, one example is highlighted: T4‟s class (Figure 37). The instructor started the class at 9:00 a.m. on the fourth day of classes. He broke the students into groups at 10:00 a.m.; gave the students a 15 minutes break; gathered the whole group again at 12:15 p.m.; and concluded it at 1:00 p.m. - totaling 3:45 of class, where about 1:00 was dedicated to teacher-student one-way delivery of information, 2:00 were dedicated to a mixture of hands-on practice and narrative construction, and 0:45 was dedicated to a mixture of student-teacher/student one-way delivery of information or presentation, hands-on practice in the form of performance, and assessment or feedback on performance. There were about 48-50 students in the class, sitting in a large “l” shaped classroom with 56 seats. During the teacher/student one-way delivery of
133 information part of the class, the main teaching strategy adopted by the instructor, again, was lecture, supported by sketches and hand-writing. In addition, the instructor used his laptop to show digital documents – all displayed through the multimedia projector on the large corner screen. A few students also asked questions during this time period. During the group work, the students had a particular prototyping activity to accomplish and engaged in continuous two-way narrative construction. After returning to the class, the different groups of students presented their work to the instructor and other students, and got feedback on their prototype. So, for the students who presented, that section of the class can be called hands-on practice and performance, or activity, while for the students who were sitting and listening to the other group‟s presentation, it is called studentstudent one-way delivery of information. During the student presentation time period, once more, other students asked questions to the instructor and presenting groups. Consequently, opportunities for two-way narrative guidance were present throughout the class time. In this way, the observed T4‟s class exhibited the presence of all the four learning cycles, often mixed with one another, like all the other classes within this group, and the greater equilibrium amongst these cycles, in relation to T1, T2, T3 and T5, but still with a dominance of one-way delivery of information. In total, 27% of the time was dedicated to teacher-student one-way delivery of information, 53% of the time was dedicated to a combination of student-teacher/student one-way delivery of information (one-way for the students watching and listening), performance or hands-on practice (for the students presenting) and feedback on performance. Because most students were watching while a group was presenting and the feedback corresponded usually to 20% of this section‟s
134 time. This amount is split like this: 50% of 53% for student one-way delivery, 30% of 53% for performance and 20% of 53% for feedback on performance. That is, about 27% corresponded to student one-way delivery, 16% to performance and 10% to feedback on performance. Additionally, 20% of the time was dedicated to both two way-narrative guidance and construction and hands-on practice and performance (because two-way narrative construction took place almost continuously and concomitantly to hands-on practice, they are split in equals for the purpose of calculating the average of the class, that is, 10% of two-way narrative construction and 10% of hands-on practice). Adding all together, 54% of the time was dedicated to teacher/student and student/teacher one-way delivery of information, 10% of the time was dedicated to two-way narrative construction, 26% of the time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance, and 10% of the class was dedicated to feedback on performance. So, despite the fact that more emphasis was given to the one-way-delivery of information, the presence of the other learning cycles, even in small proportions already made the observed Design classroom significantly more dynamic, from the student point of view, than all the other Design and Computer Science lecture classes from groups one, three and four. Considering the affordances of each learning cycle and the time dedicated to each, it can be affirmed that the observed T4‟s class afforded the students to: listen either to the instructor‟s lecture or other students‟ presentation, watch the web pages projected on the large screen by the instructor or the Slide Show images and text projected by the students during presentation, take notes with pen and paper, type notes on the laptop, zone in and out of the class by the use of the wireless laptop for checking email, browsing the Web or using any other available software – many times class-related, engage in two-way
135 narrative construction, build and test a prototype, create a Slide Show presentation with pictures and text, perform or present findings, and get feedback from instructor and students related to findings. In regard to the specific behavior of T4 and the affordances perceived by the student, it was observed the following. One-way delivery of information in the format of lecture, supported by sketches and text on an official white pad, and by computer documents and web pages projected on the large corner screen, afforded T4 to listen and type the class notes on her laptop, while swiveling her chair. The student made eye contact with the instructor and the materials displayed on the screen often, and usually listened to the lecture with crossed arms. Two-way narrative guidance in the format of instructor questions and answers and students questions and answers did not result in any interaction for T4, since the student did not ask any questions or answer any of the instructor‟s questions. Two-way narrative construction took place during the group work, together with hands-on practice, when T4 engaged in iterative discussions with her classmates about their prototype and its assembly process, and actually built a model. Performance and feedback on performance took place at the end of the class, but T4 did not present her group work during this day. The presentation was the assembly of their prototype - a contest against another group, and only two students of each group participated. These two student-contestants also orally explained their assembly process. The instructor‟s feedback took place after the prototype assembly contest and it was interspersed in the students‟ oral presentation regarding the assembly. Other students also made comments at this point of the class.
136 4.2
Spatial Design, Proxemics, Use of Space, Higher, Intermediate or Lower Level Actions, and Missed Opportunities for Action within Traditional and Online Classrooms “Spaces are themselves agents for change. Changed spaces will change practice”
(Joint Information Systems Committee, 2006, p. 30). According to Oblinger (2006), whether physical or virtual, spaces exert an effect or have an impact on learning. And they do so because of the types of interaction and uses they afford. Rudd, Gifford, Morrison and Facer (2006) affirm, however, that it is important to understand that building learning environments is foremost about education, not architecture. It is about fostering learning relationships based on particular educational visions. In this way, the design of a learning space, whether physical or virtual, needs to be informed by the view of education that is pursued. Additionally, actual learner behaviors, their interests and expectations have also an important role in informing the design of effective learning environments. But, once built, whether intentionally developed with basis on an educational vision or not, learning spaces afford specific uses, interactions, learning relationships and proxemics – or the measurable distances between people as they interact (Hall, 1990). So, by looking at learning spaces and their affordances for interaction and learning, it is possible to identify the institution‟s intended or unintended educational vision that lies underneath it. This information can be used to review the vision and re-plan the spaces. Considering, in this way, the affect of spaces on learning, this sub-section examines the 26 different uses of the traditional and online learning environments where the observed students physically took their classes. Important concepts within this section are the notions of higher, intermediate or lower level actions, referring to the concepts
137 defined by Norris (2004) and adapted by Moura (2006a). In summary, higher level actions are those bracketed by an opening and a closing, such as a conversation, which are made up of a multiplicity of chained intermediate and lower-level actions. Intermediate level actions are smaller sequences of actions within a higher level action for instance, Sally turns to John to ask what time they will need to leave, followed by John‟s reply. And lower-level actions are the smallest interactional meaning units, such as the intonation used during the conversation. Norris (2004) also defined the notion of frozen level actions, which are the higher-level actions that are performed by an individual or group of people anytime before the interaction and that are entailed or frozen in the material objects, such as a magazine lying on the table. This concept was not explored here. In order to explore the different aspects of use of space, this sub-section was further divided into three parts: 4.2.1) Spatial Design Categories; 4.2.2) Spatial Design, Proxemics, Use of Space, Higher, Intermediate or Lower Level Actions, and Missed Opportunities for Action within Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms; and 4.2.3) Spatial Design, Proxemics, Use of Space, Higher, Intermediate and Lower Level Actions, and Missed Opportunities for Action within Design Traditional Graduate Classrooms. 4.2.1
Spatial Design Categories. This sub-section briefly organizes physical and
virtual spaces for learning found within the target university into categories. Starting with the physical ones, the different spaces for social interaction and learning are clustered into seven categories: 1) auditory, 2) unidirectional classroom, 3) “l” shaped classroom, 4) computer lab, 5) individual learning space, 6) small group learning space, and 7)
138 medium/large group learning space. Figure 38 provides the explanation of one of the seven categories, the auditory space, representing how the categorization and analysis was conducted in relation to the six other types of space. And figures 39 and 40 illustrate the seven categories with sample pictures. The auditorium spatial category, Figures 38 and 39, is characterized by the presence of presentation, sitting and transition areas, where the presenter faces the audience and the audience faces the presenter only, and not the other people in the audience. In this way, it is unidirectional. The proximal distance between the presenter and the audience varies from social on the first rows (6-12 feet) to public on the farther rows (12-60 feet). One of the main high level actions taken by observed interactants that suggest learning relationships was oral delivery and auditory reception of verbal language and symbols by the presenter and audience respectively. Another one was motor activity in place (note-taking on paper or computer).
Space Categories
Areas
Description
Main Actions Observed
Auditorium
Presentation Area
Furniture – Stage, podium, desk and chair.
Auditory delivery of oral language and symbols, either through lecture or questions, with amplification provided by the microphone and sound speakers; visual delivery of body language; auditory reception of verbal language and symbols, like questions or comments; visual delivery of written language and symbols on the whiteboards; visual delivery of written and pictorial information in the format of a Slide Show, which is projected on the large screen through the multimedia projector; and note taking.
Objects and Materials – Large screen, white boards, marker, eraser, and instructor‟s personal materials and objects, such as paper and pen during class time. Layout – Rectangular shape, situated on the lower level, with podium at the left side of those who sit, desk at the center, whiteboards on the back wall, and multimedia projector and screen mounted on the ceiling. Media and Technology – Multimedia projector, microphone, document camera, sound speakers, air conditioning and instructor‟s laptop. Lighting – Focus lights above stage.
Figure 38. Auditorium Space within Target University
139 SAMPLE PICTURES Auditorium Space Category
Unidirectional classroom
“l” shaped classroom
Computer lab
Individual learning space
Figure 39. Sample Pictures of Five Space Categories within Target University
140 SAMPLE PICTURES Small group learning space
Medium/large group learning space
Figure 40. Sample Pictures of Two Space Categories within Target University
The unidirectional traditional classroom category, figure 39, is also characterized by the presence of presentation, sitting and transition areas, but the scale is much smaller. In this environment, the presenter also faces the audience and the audience also faces the presenter only, and not the other people in the audience. In this way, it is unidirectional like the auditorium. The proximal distance between the presenter and the audience varies from social on the first rows (6-12 feet) to public on the last rows (12-15 feet). The main high level actions taken by observed interactants that suggest learning relationships was also unidirectional oral delivery and auditory reception of verbal language and symbols by the presenter and audience respectively. Another one was motor activity in place (note-taking on paper or computer).
141 The “l” shaped traditional classroom category, figure 39, is also characterized by the presence of presentation, sitting and transition areas, but the layout and scale are different. In this environment, the presenter also faces the audience, spread in two groups at the left and right side of the room; and the audience also faces the presenter, but not exclusively, since the other half of the audience is visible. In this way, it is multidirectional, unlike the auditorium and unidirectional classroom. The proximal distance between the presenter and the audience varies from social on the first rows (6-12 feet) to public on the last rows (12-15 feet). The main high level actions taken by observed interactants that suggest learning relationships varied according to class activity, including: unidirectional oral delivery and auditory reception of verbal language and symbols by the presenter (teacher or student) and audience (students only or students and teacher), bi-directional or multidirectional oral delivery and auditory reception of verbal language and symbols among groups within audience (students), motor interaction with objects and materials, and note-taking on paper or computer. The computer lab category, figure 39, is characterized by the presence of sitting and transition areas. One of the main high level actions taken by observed interactants that suggest learning relationships was visual and auditory online delivery of verbal language and symbols through computers and visual and auditory reception of verbal language and symbols. The individual public learning space category, figure 39, is characterized by the presence of sitting and transition areas. The main high level action taken by observed interactants that suggest learning relationships was also visual and auditory online
142 delivery of verbal language and symbols through laptops and visual and auditory reception of verbal language and symbols. The small group public learning space category, figure 40, is characterized by the presence of sitting and transition areas. One of the main high level actions taken by observed interactants that suggest learning relationships was bidirectional oral delivery and auditory reception of verbal language and symbols. And the medium/large group public learning space category, figure 40, is characterized by the presence of sitting area, but in a larger scale, and transition area. The main high level action taken by observed interactants that suggest learning relationships was bidirectional oral delivery and auditory reception of verbal language and symbols. Regarding the institution educational view within the physical spaces described in the seven spatial categories, it can be affirmed, in general terms, that the spaces where traditional classes occur are mainly designed for unidirectional delivery of information and not for bi- or multi-directional communication or for collaboration. The auditorium and classroom designs reveal a view of learning where the instructor is in charge of delivering the information and the students are the recipient, with opportunities for questions and answers, more audible on smaller spaces, but still keeping the instructor as the center for knowledge. The spatial design of these areas did not, in general, accommodate group activity and discussion, and peer to peer iterative construction of meaning. Although the classrooms had non-fixed chairs and allowed customization of layout and configuration, only one of the instructors went beyond the original arrangement of the room in order to include collaborative activities for the students. The group spaces, mainly the ones situated in the students‟ center, which did not have
143 constraints for noise, were designed for socialization, group activity, discussion, and peer to peer iterative construction of meaning, indicating that the institution recognizes the importance of student-student interaction, but mainly outside of the classroom. Understanding that virtual learning spaces also impact learning and that, they too, reveal a view of learning, the virtual environment where online learning occurs at the target university is clustered into four spatial or navigation areas, and three categories, depending on purpose and organization. Figures 41, 42, 43 and 44 show screen grabs of the courses webpages within the target university‟s Blackboard Learning Management online platform, used by all observed online students. Included in this page are four navigation areas: global, local, contextual and supplemental. The global navigation area, on the top right in the form of bread crumbs, includes links to my institution and courses pages. The local navigation area, on the left side, includes links to: announcements, calendar, tasks, view grades, send email and personal information. The contextual navigation area, on the center of the screen, includes links to: my announcements, my courses, my calendar and my tasks. And the supplemental navigation area, on the top right of the screen, includes quick links to: home, help and log out. Screen grab 1 on Figure 41 exhibits the institution main page within the Blackboard platform. Screen grab 2 on Figure 41 shows a sample course page. In the local navigation area, on the left side, the following links are found: announcements, download software, Frequently Asked Questions, and user guide. In addition, this area includes links to a set of highlighted tools: communication, course tools, course map, refresh and detail view. In the contextual navigation area, on the center of the screen, links to the class documents and videos are found. Screen grab 3 on Figure 42 shows a
144 ONLINE LEARNING SPACE SCREEN GRAB 1 – Main Institution Page within Blackboard Platform
SCREEN GRAB 2 – Sample Course Page Showing Local Navigation on Left Side
Figure 41. Online Learning Spaces within Target University, Screen Grabs 1 & 2
145 ONLINE LEARNING SPACE SCREEN GRAB 3 – Course Document Open within Contextual Navigation Area
SCREEN GRAB 4 – Course Video Open on New Window on Top of Course Page
Figure 42. Online Learning Spaces within Target University, Screen Grabs 3 & 4
146 ONLINE LEARNING SPACE SCREEN GRAB 5 – Communication Contextual Navigation Links at Center of Screen
SCREEN GRAB 6 – Course Tools Contextual Navigation Links at Center of Screen
Figure 43 Online Learning Spaces within Target University, Screen Grabs 5 & 6
147 ONLINE LEARNING SPACE SCREEN GRAB 7 – Collaboration Contextual Navigation Links at Center of Screen
Figure 44. Online Learning Spaces within Target University, Screen Grab 7
sample course document open within the contextual navigation area. Screen grab 4 on Figure 42 shows a sample course video that opens a new window on top of the course page. Screen grab 5 on Figure 43 shows the contextual navigation links that appear once the communication link within the highlighted tools area of the local navigation is selected, including: announcements, collaboration, discussion board, group pages, messages and roster. Screen grab 6 on Figure 43 shows the contextual navigation links that appear once the course tools link within the highlighted tools area of the local navigation is selected: address book, calendar, digital drop box, glossary, homepage, my grades, personal information, tasks, The Electric Blackboard, user manual, and web assign. Screen grab 7 on Figure 44 shows the contextual navigation links that appear once
148 the collaboration link within the communication links page (Figure 43, screen grab 5) is selected, including: lecture hall/virtual classroom, and office hours. The different selected online spaces for learning and social interaction within the target university‟s Blackboard online platform were clustered into three categories: 1) information area, 2) online classroom, and 3) online classroom extension. The first online spatial category, named information area, is designed for communication of important administrative and course information and updates. This area is seen first as students login into the system. The second online spatial category, named online classroom, corresponds to the virtual space where the online class takes place, together with all the tools and support spaces directly associated to it. This means that only the communication and collaboration spaces that are integrated to, or are one-click away from the online classroom experience are included in the category. The third online spatial category, named online classroom extension, corresponds to the virtual spaces that, although designed to support the online class, are not directly associated to it, that is, they are not integrated to it, or one-click away from it. Looking at the first category, information area, represented by the introductory or log-in page and the information space that comes right after it, the following smaller spatial areas or clusters were identified: a) student identification (such as log in, email and address information), b) administrative information (such as grades and roster), c) organization (such as announcements and calendar), and d) technical support (such as help and Frequently Asked Questions). Looking specifically at the second online category, online classroom, represented by the courses webpage (Figure 41) where online students took online classes in combination with integrated links or sub-pages, a small
149 number of smaller spatial areas or clusters were found: a) content presentation (where instructors post files, such as videos, for students to view), and b) content support (such as glossary and web links). Several other clusters have a link from this area, but are not one click away, since one link moves to another or several others until it is possible to get to areas, for instance, for communication and collaboration. Looking at the third online category, online classroom extension, which expands the learning opportunities of the online classroom category, a number of smaller spatial areas or clusters can be named: a) assignment submission and storage (where students can submit their assignments and store class related documents), b) communication (where instructor and students or students and students can communicate through tools such as chat and email), and c) collaboration (where instructor and students or students and students can collaborate within the virtual classroom). In relation to the specific use of these spatial areas or clusters among the 7 different graduate Computer Science students, which took 7 different classes, the research revealed that the information area category was only used for log-in and transition to the online classroom. And that the online classroom category was only used for opening and viewing documents, mainly the class video, and, in a few cases, also for viewing and printing the class Power Point slides. The online classroom extension was not used at all. Consequently, no other tools were used during the observed interactions, indicating that the affordances of the Blackboard online platform are largely wasted, either due to the way they are set by the instructors, or the way students choose to use it, or both. In this way, the purposes and specific higher/intermediate/lower level actions of the students taking graduate Computer Science classes through the Blackboard online
150 platform at the target university, either in relation to the information area or online classroom categories, as described in Table 3, were mainly: to open and close the lecture video files, to view and review the class lecture video file, to pause the lecture video file in order to take notes regarding displayed information, to fast forward or rewind the lecture video file in order to watch a specific section, and to view or to print supplementary material such as slides. It is difficult to make affirmations regarding the institution educational view in the online environment without more information about how the observed online courses were set up more broadly, and not only in relation to the seven observed classes taken by this group of students. Based on the use the observed online students made of the virtual
Table 3 Purposes and Actions of Online Students Students
Online Tools or Pages Used During
Students Purposes and Actions
Observation S1, S2, S3,
Log-in/out page;
Log-in Blackboard platform,
S4, S5, S6,
Course page;
open/close Computer Science
S7 and S8
Course video page; and
course page, open/close video
Course slides page.
lecture, and play/pause/fast forward/rewind video lecture.
space, it is evident that the communication tools for contacting the instructor or other students is not commonly used together with the online class. During interview, several students mentioned that if they had a doubt, they typically would write it down and
151 personally contact the instructor or teacher assistant during office hours, since they were physically taking other classes on campus. A few students mentioned that they would send an email, but such behavior was never observed. No student mentioned using online communication tools to contact other students. Instead, they mentioned being used to personally contact their friends to discuss their doubts, since they met them in other traditional classes or had them as room mates. Although no substantial data is available to make a solid claim, it seems that, when students have an option, they take advantage of the possibility of contacting instructors or classmates FtF, instead of using online communication tools. Based on this limited information, all that it is possible to say is that the online communication culture does not seem to be well established and diffused among students. And regarding the institution educational view in the online environment, it can be said that the virtual spaces where online classes occur are not only simply designed for unidirectional delivery of information from the teacher to the students, but provide opportunities for bi- or multi-directional communication or for collaboration. However, despite the availability of spaces for online communication and collaboration, they were not utilized. In this way, it can be affirmed that they are distant from the daily practice of instructors and online students. 4.2.2
Spatial Design, Proxemics, Use of Space, Higher, Intermediate or Lower
Level Actions, and Missed Opportunities for Action within Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms. This sub-section explores five elements within the analysis of space, contrasting groups one and four in the following four part sequence: spatial design and instructor-student and student-student proxemics; observed
152 higher, intermediate and lower level actions; summary instructor and student use of space; and student missed opportunities for action. In relation to spatial design, group one students took FtF classes in spaces within the auditorium and unidirectional classroom categories (figure 39), and group four students physically took classes in spaces within the computer lab and small group learning space categories (figures 39 and 40). Overall, in the case of group one, the classroom sizes varied from a 200 seat auditorium to a 30 seat small unidirectional classroom. And the spaces where group four online students took classes varied from a small 12 place seat area within the library, with tables for pairs of students to sit together, to a medium 24 individual seat computer lab. Figures 45 and 46 present selected examples of group one and four classroom layouts, and instructor and student position within the space, represented by S2, S5 and S8‟s traditional classrooms, within group one, and by S1, S4 and S7‟s online classrooms, within group four, respectively. Within group one, the research revealed that social proxemics was the most frequent distance between student and instructor – implying a lack of opportunities for personal interactions. For the students attending classes either in the auditorium or the large classrooms, the distance among students often varied from intimate to public, but usually without facial contact - implying an inadequacy of support for FtF communication among students. Within group four, social proxemics was also the most frequent distance, however not between student and instructor, but between observed student and other individuals within the physical spaces where the classes were taken mainly computer labs and library rooms. It appeared that physical proxemics, varying
153 S2’S TRADITIONAL
S5’S TRADITIONAL
S8’S TRADITIONAL
CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM
Figure 45. Students S2, S5 and S8, and Instructors Traditional Classroom Layout and Position within Space
Use of Space S1‟s Online Classroom
S4‟s Online Classroom
S7‟s Online Classroom
Figure 46. Students S1, S4 and S7, and Instructors Online Classroom Layout and Position within Space
154 from personal to public, did not have an effect on the student interaction with the online environment, unless noise, either auditory or visual, was involved in the physical space. That is, the situations where online students typically paid attention to other students in the room were when they were: walking in and out the space, answering the phone, or talking loud. Indications were found that the computer itself, and the technical issues around it and around the online lecture and the online learning space, had a greater impact on learning than the physical space where students were situated. The distance between the online instructors and students taking classes in front of a computer is named here virtual proxemics, which, within the constraints of this study, was found to be parallel to social proxemics in some interactional aspects. Turning to the contrast of instructors and students‟ use of space within groups one and four, in both cases, uneven opportunities were seen on the side of students and instructors, always with the instructor in control of the dynamics of the classroom and with richer multimodal experience. Table 4 presents the student and instructor use of space within group one. In terms of similarities and differences regarding student and instructor‟s use of space, the research revealed that students were mainly restricted to sitting in a particular area of the classroom, which corresponds only to in-place body movement, such as leg shaking as described earlier. In opposition, instructors had the opportunity to fluidly move in the stage area, standing or sitting, either facing the students during lecture, note taking or slide projection, or with their backs turned to the students when writing on the boards. Table 5 presents the student and instructor use of space within group four. In terms of similarities and differences regarding student and instructor‟s use of space, the
155 research revealed that students were mainly restricted to sitting in front of a computer screen, which corresponds only to fixed gaze, speech-less, in-place body movement. In opposition, the instructor had the opportunity to fluidly move in the stage area of the physical classroom, followed by a video camera that captured the instructor and learning material images and streamed them to the different online students.
Table 4 Computer Science Traditional Classrooms Use of Space Computer Science Traditional Classroom Student Use of Space
Instructor Use of Space
Mainly restricted to sitting in a
Fluidly moving in the stage area of the
particular area of the auditorium.
auditorium.
S2
Mainly restricted to sitting in a
Mainly sitting at the instructor desk.
S3
particular area of the classroom.
Fluidly moving in the stage area of the
S1
classroom. S4
Mainly standing in one area of the auditorium stage.
S5
Mainly restricted to sitting in a
Mainly sitting at the instructor desk.
particular area of the classroom. S6
Mainly restricted to sitting in a
Fluidly moving in the stage area of the
S7
particular area of the auditorium.
auditorium.
S8
156 Table 5 Computer Science Online Classrooms Use of Space Computer Science Online Classrooms Student Use of Space
Instructor Use of Space
S1, S2, S3,
Mostly restricted to sitting in
Not always visible, but mostly sitting
S4, S5, S6,
front of the computer.
at the instructor‟s desk or moving
S7 & S8
fluidly in the stage area, while writing on the white boards.
Among the main higher, intermediate or lower level actions found across students within group one spaces were: listening to the instructor‟s lecture and taking notes. Within group four, the main actions were: clicking the mouse and typing keys to open the lecture, looking at the screen, listening to the instructor‟s online lecture on the computer screen, and taking notes on paper. In this way, in both cases, the predominance of unidirectional communication and lack of opportunities for bi-directional communication and collaboration was found. Consequently, both groups revealed an educational view where the students are passive recipients of information. One example is highlighted within each of these groups – student S8‟s class within group one (Figure 45) and student S7‟s class within group four (Figure 46). Within group one, student S8 took the traditional class in a large auditorium, sat from intimate to public distance from his classmates and sat with public distance from his instructor. His main higher/intermediate/lower level actions were: listening to the instructor‟s lecture, taking scattered notes on paper, and occasionally checking email and
157 browsing the Web. Within group four, Student S7 physically took the online class in an area of the university‟s library, and not on a computer lab like all the other observed online students. She sat from social to public distance to the other individuals in the library, who were involved in other activities not related to her class. Her main higher/intermediate/lower level actions, many of them done simultaneously, were: clicking the mouse and typing keys to open the lecture, listening to the instructor‟s online lecture on the computer, opening documents on the screen, browsing the Web, looking at the screen, looking at the printed slides, looking at her cell phone display, and taking notes on the slides printed pages. Examining now the missed opportunities for action within groups one and four, table 6 presents the missed opportunities for action within S3 and S4‟s classes, representing how the analysis was conducted in relation to students S1, S2, S5, S6, S7 and S8, within group one, and table 7 presents the missed opportunities for action within S5 and S6‟s classes, representing how the analysis was conducted in relation to students S1, S2, S3, S4, and S7, within group four. In terms of missed opportunities for action within group one classes, the research revealed that the students did not make use of a number of opportunities for action that were immediately available. For instance, asking questions was an opportunity only taken by one student, S6. In her case, she continuously answered the instructor questions and asked several others questions, building narrative and constructing meaning iteratively through conversation with the instructor. Several students mentioned during the interview that they do not like to ask questions when they have doubts because they feel it disturbs the flow of the class or because they simply feel shy about talking in front of others. In
158 Table 6 Computer Science Traditional Classroom Physical Context, Actions and Missed Opportunities Computer Science Traditional Classroom Classroom Physical
High/Intermediate Level
Context
Actions Taken
S3 Computer Science
Missed Opportunities
Listening to the instructor‟s Asking and answering
graduate traditional class in lecture, and taking few
questions; having
a small classroom, with
notes on paper, while often
group discussion; doing
lecture and white board
making eye contact with
practical activity;
notes.
the instructor and looking
presenting work; and
at the white boards.
getting feedback.
S4 Computer Science
Listening to the instructor‟s Same as above.
graduate traditional class in lecture, and taking some a large auditorium, with
notes on paper, while often
lecture, and slides.
making eye contact with the instructor, looking at the projected slides, and shaking his legs so vigorously that the whole body trembled too.
159 this way, there seems to be unspoken social and cultural conventions and expectations of what student behavior should be, and personality characteristics that prevent students from asking questions to the instructor and taking more advantage of this type of opportunity when it occurs. Due to the characteristics of the pedagogical design, no opportunities were available for group discussion, doing practical activities, presenting work and getting feedback. But as it will be shown in the case of group two, that would be possible if the instructor so decided to make those opportunities available, despite the physical limitations of the space, by, for instance, having the student groups meet outside the classroom. The multimodal experience of the students was uneven in some regards, due to their own choices for action. The higher/intermediate/lower level actions taken by the students, therefore, reflected their position within the space, conventional social and cultural expectations regarding student behavior, preferences for interaction channel, personality types, pedagogical design of the class and students own idiosyncrasies. In terms of missed opportunities for action within group four classes, the research revealed that the students had very limited opportunities for action readily available to them, beyond watching the lecture. For instance, communicating with the instructor during the online class is only asynchronously available to students through the Internet. And even so, because of the design online platform (figures 41, 42, 43 and 44), that function is not readily available in the course page, but within another online page within the system. In this way, no student, even S6 who excelled in communication within the traditional classroom, asked questions to the instructor, through email, during the online lecture. Most students indicated that they would rather go to the instructor or teacher assistant office and interact FtF for that matter, or ask the question to one of their friends
160 Table 7 Computer Science Virtual and Online Classroom Physical Contexts, Actions and Missed Opportunities Computer Science Online Classroom
S5
Classroom Contexts
High Level Actions Taken
Missed Opportunities
Computer Science
Clicking the mouse and typing
Asking and answering
graduate online class
keys to open the lecture,
questions online;
in a computer lab or
looking now and then at the
having online group
library area, with
screen, listening to the
discussion; doing
online lecture, and
instructor‟s online lecture on
practical activity;
slides or white
the computer screen, and
presenting work; and
board/yellow pad
taking extensive notes on
getting immediate
notes.
paper.
feedback on performance.
S6
Same as above.
Clicking the mouse and typing keys to open the lecture, gazing intensively at the screen, listening to the instructor‟s online lecture on the computer screen, and taking economic notes on paper, while shaking her legs rhythmically.
Same as above.
161 or room mates. In this way, due to the characteristics of the pedagogical design, no opportunities were available for student-teacher communication, group discussion, doing practical activities, presenting work, or getting feedback. Through a different pedagogical design of the online classroom and platform system, these opportunities could, perhaps, become more readily available to students. The multimodal experience of the students was evenly limited, not due to the students own choices for action, but the constrained possibilities for action available within the space. The higher/intermediate/lower level actions taken by the students, therefore, reflected mainly the pedagogical design of the class. 4.2.3
Spatial Design, Proxemics, Use of Space, Higher, Intermediate or Lower
Level Actions, and Missed Opportunities for Action within Design Traditional Graduate Classrooms. This sub-section explores the same five elements explored in the previous segment, but now contrasting groups two and three, including, in this sequence: spatial design and instructor-student and student-student proxemics; observed higher, intermediate and lower level actions; summary instructor and student use of space; and student missed opportunities for action. In relation to spatial design, both groups two and three students took FtF classes in the “l” shaped classroom (figure 39), which accommodates around 56 students. Figures 47 and 48 present selected examples of the use of space within group two, represented by T2 and T4‟s traditional hands-on classrooms, and within group three, represented by T7 and T10‟s traditional lecture classrooms, respectively. Looking first at group three, little variation was found within the group, since these students used the same classroom, the instructor was the same, and the pedagogical
162 Use of Space T2‟s Traditional Classroom
T4‟s Traditional Classroom
Figure 47. Students T2 and T4 Traditional Design Classrooms
Use of Space T7‟s Traditional Classroom
T10‟s Traditional Classroom
Figure 48. Students T7 and T10 Traditional Design Classrooms
163 approach was the same, although the classroom layout was arranged differently on the day T10 was observed. The pattern across the data from group three reveals that social proxemics was the typical distance between students and instructor – usually implying a lack of opportunities for personal interactions. For the students attending classes in this classroom, the distance among students often varied from intimate to public, but usually without facial contact with the other students during the entire class time, despite the room being “l” shaped, since the instructor asked all the students to sit at only one side of the classroom, except in one of the classes. On the single day where the classroom was arranged differently, instead of having all chairs organized in rows faced to the instructor, there were a group of four chairs around each table, supposedly allowing the students to sit FtF and interact with one another. Due to the lecture format of the class, nevertheless, even when students where across the table from each other, they turned their chairs to the instructor and their backs to their classmates, never stopping to discuss the lecture or do something together. These two classroom arrangements and situations implied an inadequacy of support to FtF communication among students, either due to the spatial or pedagogical design of the classroom. The latter indicates that through pedagogical design, a spatial design geared towards action can be transformed into a restricted one. Looking at group two, little variation was found within the group, since, again, these students used the same classroom, the instructor was the same, and the pedagogical approach was the same. The pattern across the data from this group reveals that social proxemics was also the typical distance between student and instructor – usually implying a lack of opportunities for personal interactions. However, due to the nature of the pedagogical activities, the students had opportunities to interact with personal
164 distance to the instructor during group work and student presentation. For the students attending classes in this classroom, the distance among students often varied from intimate to public, but usually without facial contact with half of the other students during lecture time, since the classroom is “l” shaped - implying a partial inadequacy of support to FtF communication among students. Again due to the nature of the pedagogical activities, students had opportunities to interact with personal distance to a group of other students. Turning to the contrast of instructors and students‟ use of space within groups three and two, in the case of group three, uneven opportunities were seen on the side of students and instructors, always with the instructor in control of the dynamics of the classroom and with richer multimodal experience, in the same line as what was observed in groups one and four. In the case of group two, however, students and instructor opportunities were a close match in terms of multimodal experience, with differences only in regard to the amount of time for one experience or the other. Table 8 presents the student and instructor use of space within group three. In terms of similarities and differences regarding student and instructor‟s use of space, the research revealed, like in the Computer Science traditional class, that students were mainly restricted to sitting in a particular area of the classroom, which corresponds only to in-place body movement. In opposition, the instructor had the opportunity to fluidly move in the stage area, always standing and facing the students during lecture and slide projection. Table 9 presents the students T2 and T3 use of space within group two, in contrast to the instructor use of space, representing how the analysis was conducted in relation to
165 students T1, T4 and T5. In terms of similarities and differences regarding student and instructor‟s use of space - looking across the data from T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 – the research revealed that students were restricted to sitting in a particular area of the class
Table 8 Design Lecture Classrooms Use of Space Design Lecture Graduate Classroom Student Use of Space
Instructor Use of Space
T6, T7,
Mostly restricted to sitting in a
Fluidly moving in the stage area
T8, T9,
particular area of the classroom.
during the entire class.
T10 & T11
only during the lecture section of the class. But during the hands-on activity and presentation sections, they had opportunities to move fluidly within and outside the classroom space. The instructor, on the five different days of class, had the opportunity to move fluidly in the stage area during the lecture and in between student groups during the hands-on activity. But he was restricted to sitting in one area during student presentations. Contrasting the main higher, intermediate or lower level actions found across groups three and two students within this space, the following was found. In the case of group three, the main actions were: watching and listening to the instructor‟s lecture, watching the instructor slides on the large screen or laptop, and taking notes on paper or typing notes on laptop. This supports earlier findings regarding the predominance of
166 Table 9 Design Hands-On Classrooms Use of Space Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop
T2
T3
Student Use of Space
Instructor Use of Space
Mostly restricted to sitting in a particular
Fluidly moving in the stage area of
area of the classroom, but also partially
the “l” shaped classroom.
moving fluidly in the stage area during part
Sitting during student
of the group prototyping activity.
presentations.
Mostly restricted to sitting in a particular
Same as above.
area of the classroom, and partially standing in one area of the stage during group presentation.
unidirectional communication and lack of opportunities for collaboration. In the case of group two, the main actions were: listening to the instructor‟s lecture, prototyping, discussing the prototype with group, performing or watching one‟s group work being presented, and listening to the instructor‟s feedback on group work. That indicates that the nature of the pedagogical activities superseded the nature of the space, so that despite the classroom space and its arrangement not being supportive of group communication and collaboration, those opportunities became available to students as a function of the pedagogical design of the class.
167 In this way, in spite of the fact that group two‟s “l” shaped classroom potentially reveals an educational view where the students are partially passive recipients of information, the instructor, through pedagogical design, was able to overcome that limitation and provide rich opportunities for the students to communicate and collaborate. And that suggests that pedagogical design has a greater effect on educational view and learning opportunities than space, and that through pedagogical design it is possible to transform a passive classroom into one where the students actively construct meaning. In contrast, in the case of group three, the nature of the pedagogical design adopted by the instructor, accentuated the potential partial passivity of the classroom even further by having all the students sitting in only one side of the “l” shaped space or by using all the class time for lecture, without opportunities, for instance, for group discussion. One example is highlighted within each of these groups – student T10‟s class within group three and student T2‟s class within group two. Within group three, student T10 (Figure 49) took the Design lecture class in a large “l” shaped classroom on the day the tables and chairs were configured differently. He sat from intimate to public distance from his classmates and sat with social distance from his instructor. His main higher/intermediate/lower level actions were: listening to the instructor‟s lecture, checking email and browsing the Web. Within group two, student T2 (Figure 50) took the Design hands-on graduate workshop in the same large “l” shaped classroom, sat from intimate to public distance from his classmates and sat with social distance from his instructor. Some of his main higher/ intermediate/lower level actions were often done at once, such as: listening to the instructor‟s lecture, taking notes on paper, checking email and browsing the Web. Other
168 main higher/intermediate/lower level actions were: looking for prototyping material, prototyping, discussing the prototype with his group, watching his group work presentation, and listening to the instructor‟s feedback on his group work. Examining now the missed opportunities for action within groups two and three, starting now with group two, table 10 presents the missed opportunities for action within T1 and T3‟s classes, representing how the analysis was conducted in relation to students T2, T4 and T5, and table 11 presents the missed opportunities for action within T6 and T8‟s classes, representing how the analysis was conducted in relation to students T7, T9, T10, and T11. In terms of missed opportunities for action within group two classes, the research revealed that all the identified opportunities for action within the four different cycles of learning, which were provided by the pedagogical design of the class, were utilized, but with a lot of variation from one student to another and without balance in relation the higher/intermediate/lower level action opportunities taken. Amongst the main actions found are: asking and answering questions; having group discussion; doing practical activity; presenting work; and getting feedback on performance. Not every student made use of all the opportunities for action that were immediately available to them. In addition, it was observed that students have variable conversation skills and levels of English fluency, which affect the group interaction - this became evident in group discussions. On a few occasions, it was also noticed that some of the students tried, successfully or not, to dominate the conversation or to determine what other students in the group should or not do. In relation to that, it appeared that not all students have teamwork skills, and activities that are supposed to be collaborative, end up being
169 Table 10 T1 and T3 Actions and Missed Opportunities Design Hands-On Workshop Classroom Physical
High Level Actions Taken
Missed Opportunities
Design I graduate
Listening to the instructor‟s
All the opportunities for
traditional class in a
lecture, prototyping,
actions were utilized, but
large “l” shaped
discussing the prototype with without balance amongst:
classroom, with
her group, presenting her
asking and answering
lecture, group work,
group work, and listening to
questions; having group
student presentation
the instructor‟s feedback.
discussion; doing
Context T1
and feedback on
practical activity;
performance.
presenting work; and getting feedback on performance.
T3
Same as above.
Listening to the instructor‟s lecture, taking few notes on paper, working in pairs, discussing her group work, presenting her group work, and listening to the instructor‟s feedback on her group work.
Same as above.
170 Table 11 Design Lecture Classroom Physical Context, Actions and Missed Opportunities Design Lecture Classroom
T6
Classroom Physical
High Level Actions
Missed Opportunities
Context
Taken
Design II graduate
Listening to the
Asking and answering
traditional class in a large
instructor‟s lecture,
questions; having group
“l” shaped classroom,
talking about her course
discussion; doing
with lecture and feedback
expectations, doodling
practical activity;
on homework activity.
on the paper, taking
presenting work; getting
class notes on paper,
immediate feedback on
checking email and
performance.
browsing the Web, often all at once. T8
Same as above.
Watching and listening
Same as above.
to the instructor‟s lecture, following the instructor slides on her
dominated by one or more students in relation to the others, without any supporting structure to help to deal with that. The pedagogical design, in this way, created rich opportunities for group discussion, hands-on practice, group work presentation, and feedback on performance, but did not provide support for mediating group collaboration.
171 The multimodal experience of the students was, despite available opportunities, uneven in many regards, due to their own choices for action or skills. The higher/intermediate/ lower level actions taken by the students, therefore, reflected their position within the space, the conventional social and cultural expectations regarding student behavior, preferences for interaction channel, personality type, skills, pedagogical design of the class and students own idiosyncrasies. In terms of missed opportunities for action within group three classes, the research revealed that, like in the previous examples, the students did not make use of a number of opportunities for action that were immediately available to them. Again, asking questions was an evident opportunity only taken by a few. Due to the characteristics of the pedagogical design, no opportunities were available for group discussion, doing practical activities, and presenting work. But as seen in the case of group two - who used the same physical space as group three, it would be possible if the instructor decided to make them available to the students. Yet again, the multimodal experience of the students was uneven in some regards, due to their own choices for action and/or skills. The higher/intermediate/lower level actions taken by the students, therefore, reflected, the same issues identified in group two.
4.3
Available Media, Modes and Technology, and Their Use within Traditional and Online Classrooms
Medium of dissemination, mode of representation and technology are often related to communication. The printed book, for instance, is a medium that represents written text and still images through the use of the technology of printing machines in
172 order to communicate stories, information, pictures, etc. According to Jewitt (2004b), technologies of dissemination or media, and technologies of representation or modes, have particular affordances that need to be considered together. In the author‟s words “the meaning of a text is realized by people‟s engagement with both the medium of dissemination and the representational affordances (whether social or material) of the modes that are used” (p.184). Within classrooms, media, mode and technology have, throughout the centuries, been used to support teaching and learning. By looking at the affordances, or possibilities for action, of technologies of dissemination and representation within the traditional and online classroom, and contrasting the teacher-student use of media, modes and technology on traditional and online classrooms, insights can be gained into the possibilities for learning and meaning making. This sub-section was further divided into two parts: 4.3.1) Use of Media, Modes and Technology within Traditional Classrooms; and 4.3.2) Use of Media, Modes and Technology within Online Classrooms. 4.3.1
Use of Media, Modes and Technology within Traditional Classrooms. This
sub-section explores the instructor and students‟ use of media, modes and technology within groups one, two and three. Tables 12 and 13 present students S2 and S3, and group one classroom instructors‟ relation with media, technology, materials and objects, representing how the analysis was conducted in relation to students S1, S4, S5, S6, S7 and S8. Tables 14 and 15 present students T2 and T5, and group two instructor, also representing students T1, T3 and T4. And tables 16 and 17 present students T7 and T9, and group three instructor, also representing students T6, T8, T10 and T11.
173 Table 12 Student S2 and Computer Science Traditional Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Computer Science Traditional Graduate
Student S2
Classroom Instructor 1:50-
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY: Broadcast
MEDIA &
3:10
equipment (Video camera mounted up high on
TECHNOLOGY: None.
the back wall, which is controlled by the
MATERIALS: Paper and
broadcasting director, who sits on the room next
pen.
to the class and watches everything through glass OBJECTS: None. wall), document camera (which allows instructor
INTERACTION: Student
to shift broadcast back and forth from video
S2 listens to the
camera to laptop with Slide Show), TV monitor,
instructor presentation
wireless computer connected to the Web and to
and watches the slides on
document camera, and DVD/VCR player
the TV monitor. Now
(available but not used).
and then he takes notes
MATERIALS: Yellow legal pad, pen and
on his paper notebook.
marker (all available but not used).
Only the instructor
OBJECTS: Whiteboards (available but not used). speaks during the entire INTERACTION: Instructor orally presents content to the class supported by a Power Point
class.
174 Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Computer Science Traditional Graduate
Student S2
Classroom Instructor presentation, displayed from her laptop to the classroom TV monitor. The class is given in a broadcast classroom. While the instructor teaches, the class is broadcasted to online students. Online students see either the instructor or the laptop slides, depending on the option selection by the instructor on the document camera.
Table 13 Student S3 and Computer Science Traditional Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Computer Science Traditional Graduate
Student S3
Classroom Instructor 3:25-
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY: Broadcast
MEDIA &
4:32
equipment (Video camera mounted up high on the
TECHNOLOGY: None.
back wall, which is controlled by the broadcasting
MATERIALS: Paper and
director, who sits on the room next to the class
pen.
175 Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Computer Science Traditional Graduate
Student S3
Classroom Instructor 3:25-
and watches everything through glass wall),
OBJECTS: None.
4:32
document camera, TV monitor, and DVD/VCR
INTERACTION: Student
player (available but not used).
S3 listens to the lecture and
MATERIALS: Marker.
questions, ponders, takes
OBJECTS: Whiteboards.
notes on his paper
INTERACTION: Instructor orally presents
notebook, listens to other
content to the class and writes extensively on the
students' answers and
white boards. The class is given in a broadcast
questions, and answers to
classroom. While the instructor teaches, the class
the instructor occasionally.
is broadcasted to online students and recorded for later view. Online students see either the instructor or the white boards, depending on the option selection by the broadcasting director on the back room.
In terms of use of media, modes and technology within group one classes looking across the data from S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7 and S8 – the research revealed that both student and instructors had access to media, modes and technology, but of a different kind and degree. Regarding media and technology, group one instructors had access to: microphone to represent speech and amplify its capacity so they could be heard
176 by all the students – traditional or online; podium where they stood and lectured so that their facial expressions, gestures and body movements were visible to all the students in the classroom; laptop computer, Power Point slides and a multimedia projector controlled by a remote control to display still images, graphs and written text to traditional and online students; and video camera to represent their image, speech and movement and stream these to online students. Group one students had access to: cell phones in silent mode to check written private messages, and laptop computers to represent and visualize text and images - although only a minority of the students brought and used laptops during class. In relation to materials and objects, group one instructors had access to: yellow legal pads and pens to represent written text, and whiteboards and markers to represent written text in large scale, so that students could see at a distance. And group one students had access to: paper and pens to represent written text in the format of notes. In relation to the interactions that took place, group one instructors presented the content to the class through speech supported by either a slide show or notes written on the yellow pad or white boards that represented text and images, in some of the cases displayed through the multimedia projector on a large screen located at the central front of the classroom or on TV monitors mounted on the side walls, representing these modes of representation in large scale. Also in the case of the instructors, on some occasions, some equipment was available, but not used. The students, in contrast, listened to speech during the instructor presentation, usually simply taking notes now and then to represent written text. In terms of use of media, modes and technology within group two, the research revealed that students and instructor had access to almost the same or equivalent media
177 and technology, but with some variations. Regarding media and technology, group two instructor had access to: video camera to capture written text and sketches and display them through a multimedia projector on a screen in order to represent these modes of representation in large scale; and laptop computer, web pages and the multimedia projector to display and present text, still image, movement and sound. He did not use a microphone to represent speech and amplify its capacity – he simply spoke loud. Group two students had access to: cell phones in silent mode to represent private text messages, and laptop computers to represent text, still images and movement– a large majority of the students in the classroom had their laptops with them one day or another, although only a minority of the observed students brought and used laptops. The students who presented their group work had access to all the media and technology used by the instructor, but not all used them when they were focus of the observation. In relation to materials and objects, group two instructor had access to: paper and pen to represent written text and sketches, whiteboards on wheels and markers to represent written text and sketches in large scale, and 3D objects such as Lego blocks, levelers, rods, springs, washers, and rubber bands to represent three dimensional image and form, and display them to the students. And group two students had access to: paper and pens to represent written text; and the same 3D objects as the instructor, to represent three dimensional image and form. In relation to the interactions that took place, group two instructor presented the content to the class through speech, supported by written text and image in real or large scale, through the use of paper, pen, video camera, multimedia projector, large projection screen, and wireless laptop computer. The students, in contrast, listened to the instructor‟s speech and watched his gestures, movements and facial expressions;
178 Table 14 Student T2 and Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T2
Instructor & Students 9:10-
MEDIA: Video camera, projector, wireless
MEDIA: Wireless computer
10:40
computer connected to the Web.
connected to the Web.
MATERIALS: Sketch pad, pen and marker.
MATERIALS: Paper and pen.
OBJECTS: Large projection screen, tripod,
OBJECTS: None.
white board on wheels, levelers, rods, light
INTERACTION: Student T2
switch and curtain (blind) switch.
uses his wireless notebook
INTERACTION: Instructor presents content
almost continuously and takes
to the class using a sketch pad and pen to
notes on his paper notebook
draw and write, and using the video camera
now and then.
and projector to display what he produces on a large projection screen. A few times, he also makes use of a wireless computer connected to the Web to show web pages to the class, using the projector and large screen for display. He also makes a series of demonstrations,
179 Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T2
Instructor & Students 9:10-
asking students to hold weights (levelers and
10:40
rods) and identify which one is heavier, and turning off and bringing down all the lights and curtains or blinders in the room, opening or closing more and asking the students to identify if the room got lighter or darker.
10:41- The same as above.
MATERIALS: Paper.
11:50
OBJECTS: Lego blocks, levelers, rods, springs, washers and rubber bands. INTERACTION: Student T2 builds and tests a series of spring-loaded levelers together with his team.
11:51- The same as above.
MEDIA: Wireless computer
13:09
connected to the Web. MATERIALS: Paper and pen. INTERACTION: Student T2 uses his wireless notebook continuously, while he listens
180 Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T2
Instructor & Students 11:51- The same as above.
to the group presentations and
13:09
to the final considerations of the instructor.
Table 15 Student T5 and Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T5
Instructor & Students 9:00-
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY: Video
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY:
10:30
camera, projector, wireless computer
Wireless computer connected to the
connected to the Web.
Web.
MATERIALS: Sketch pad, pen and
MATERIALS: None.
marker.
OBJECTS: None.
OBJECTS: Large projection screen,
INTERACTION: Student T5 uses
tripod, white board on wheels, chop
his wireless notebook almost
sticks, vase.
continuously to take notes or browse
INTERACTION: Instructor presents
the Web.
181 Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T5
Instructor & Students 9:00-
content to the class using a sketch pad and
10:30
pen to draw and write, and using the video camera and projector to display what he produces on a large projection screen. He also displays a video clip, and makes use of a wireless computer connected to the Web to show web pages to the class, using the projector and large screen for display. Additionally, he makes a series of demonstrations, asking students to volunteer to identify objects with closed eyes.
10:31- The same as above.
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY:
11:30
Wireless computer connected to the Web. MATERIALS: None. OBJECTS: Ring, football ball, wrapped Japanese cookie, vase, can opener.
182 Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T5
Instructor & Students 10:31- The same as above.
INTERACTION: Student T5
11:30
explores and describes an objected handed by another student or hands in an object for his pair to explore and describe. Additionally, he uses his notebook to put the presentation together with another student.
11:31- The same as above.
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY:
13:00
Wireless computer connected to the Web. MATERIALS: None. OBJECTS: Ring, football ball, wrapped Japanese cookie, vase, can opener, pocket mirror and toy. INTERACTION: Student T5 uses his notebook to finish his group presentation and to browse the Web, while he listens to the group presentations and to the final considerations of the instructor.
183 represented text in the form of notes; built three dimensional prototypes and enacted their use; and used speech during group discussion and presentation. In terms of use of media, modes and technology within group three classes, the research revealed that both student and instructors had access to media and technology, but, like in the case of the first group, of a different kind. Regarding media and technology, group three instructor had access to: laptop computer, Power Point slides and a multimedia projector to display still images, graphs and written text to students. He did not use a microphone to represent speech and amplify its capacity – he simply spoke loud. Group three students had access to: cell phones in silent mode to check written private messages, and laptop computers to represent and visualize text and images. In relation to materials and objects, group three instructor had access to items he did not use, such as whiteboards on wheels and markers to represent text in large scale. And group three students had access to: paper and pens to represent text in the form of notes. In relation to the interactions that took place, group three instructor presented content to the class through speech, supported by projected large scale written text and image, through the use of laptop computer, multimedia projector, and large projection screen. The students, in contrast, listened to the instructor‟s speech and watched his gestures, movements and facial expressions; represented text and sketches - in the format of notes; and used speech during answers to instructor‟s questions. Looking at the affordances of the technologies of dissemination and representation, contrasting the ones used by group one instructors and students, it was consistently found that instructors had far greater opportunities to use different modes, media and technology than students. Likewise, in the case of group three, the research
184 Table 16 Student T7 and Design Lecture Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T7
Instructor & Students 6:25-
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY: Multimedia
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY:
8:00
projector, laptop computer.
Laptop computer.
MATERIALS: Lecture Printed Notes,
MATERIALS: Paper and pen.
Marker (not used), White Paper (not used)
OBJECTS: None.
and Pen (not used).
INTERACTION: Student T7
OBJECTS: Large Projection Screen,
mainly listens to the lecture and
Desk, Chair, White boards/Felt Panels on
does not take notes. He also uses
Wheels (not used), White Board on Wall
his laptop to browse the Web.
(not used). INTERACTION: Instructor presents content to the class mainly orally and in visual form, using the multimedia projector to display his Power Point slides on a large screen at the corner of the “l” shaped classroom. In the beginning of the class, he comments on the students‟ homework and asks questions to specific
185 Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T7
Instructor & Students 6:25-
students. During the presentation, he tells
8:00
many stories and asks general questions, in order to make the class conversational.
8:00-
[Break]
[Break]
(The same as 6:25 )
(The same as 6:25)
8:15 8:159:20
Table 17 Student T9 and Design Lecture Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T9
Instructor & Students 6:30-
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY: Multimedia
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY:
8:00
projector, laptop computer.
Laptop computer.
MATERIALS: Lecture Printed Notes,
MATERIALS: Paper and pen.
Marker (not used), White Paper (not used)
OBJECTS: None.
and Pen (not used).
INTERACTION: Student T9
186 Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom
Student T9
Instructor & Students 6:30-
OBJECTS: Large Projection Screen,
makes notes and highlights the
8:00
Desk, Chair, White boards/Felt Panels on
class slides on his tablet computer,
Wheels (not used), White Board on Wall
while looking at the large screen,
(not used).
listening to the instructor and
INTERACTION: Instructor presents
missing some verbal exchange in
content to the class mainly orally and in
the class.
visual form, using the multimedia projector to display his Power Point slides on a large screen at the corner of the “l” shaped classroom. In the beginning of the class, he asks several questions about the homework. During the presentation, he tells many stories and asks general questions, in order to make the class conversational. 8:00-
[Break]
[Break]
(same)
(same)
8:12 8:129:03
187 revealed that the pedagogical design of the class, its affordances in terms of possibilities for action, and its affordances as perceived and selected by the student, had a great impact on the outcome. In both cases, a communicational imbalance was observed, where students are always disadvantaged in terms of opportunities to learn and make meaning. This further supports earlier findings regarding the predominance of imbalanced communication and lack of opportunities for collaboration. In contrast, in the case of group two, it was consistently found that both the instructor and students had varied opportunities to use different modes, media and technology, indicating possible rich communicational exchange. In this way, a communicational balance was observed between instructor and students – partially derived from the particular selection and use of modes, media and technology, and not because of the opportunities that these technologies of dissemination and representation provided per se. Once more, it is noticed that the relationship between the use of modes, media and technology made by the student and the way the class was set up, implied particular opportunities for communication created by the instructor and perceived by the students. In this way, across group two students, it is considered that the pedagogical design of the class, its affordances in terms of possibilities for action, and its affordances as perceived and selected by the student, impacted the outcome, which in this case was: communicational balance. 4.3.2
Use of Media, Modes and Technology within Online Classrooms. This sub-
section explores the instructor and students‟ use of media, modes and technology within groups four and six (Table 2). Tables 18 and 19 present student S5 and S6, and online Computer Science graduate classroom instructors relation with media, technology,
188 Table 18 Student S5 and Computer Science Online Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Computer Science Online Graduate
Student S5
Classroom Instructor 1:05-
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY:
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY: Personal
1:44
Broadcast equipment (Video camera),
computer connected to the Internet,
document camera, TV monitor.
keyboard, mouse, earphones.
MATERIALS: Yellow pad and pen.
MATERIALS: Paper and pen.
OBJECTS: None.
OBJECTS: None.
INTERACTION: Instructor orally
INTERACTION: Student S5 watches
presents content to the class, while
the lecture through the computer
writing on the yellow pad. The
screen and sees what the instructor
students in the real classroom see
writes on yellow pad. He takes
what the instructor writes on the
extensive notes on his note pad,
through the TV monitors, and S5 and
despite the fact that the notes are
other online students see the instructor
available for download. S5 does not
and yellow pad images through the
interact with the instructor through
computer screen. Online students do
email or other means of
not see the students in the classroom.
communication during the
And the students in the classroom do
presentation. But he mentions during
not see or communicate with them.
the interview that he uses to do that when he has doubts.
189 Table 19 Student S6 and Computer Science Online Graduate Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Technology, Materials and Objects Relation with Media, Materials & Objects – Interaction, Manipulation and Creation Time
Computer Science Online Graduate
Student S6
Classroom Instructor 10:05- MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY:
MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY: Personal
12:23
Broadcast equipment (Video
computer connected to the Internet,
camera), document camera, TV
keyboard, mouse, earphones.
monitor, computer with slide show
MATERIALS: Paper and pen.
presentation.
OBJECTS: None.
MATERIALS: None.
INTERACTION: Student S6 watches
OBJECTS: None.
the lecture and the Power Point slides
INTERACTION: Instructor orally
through the computer screen. She gazes
presents content to the class, while
intensively at the computer monitor and
displaying slides from his laptop.
makes gestures in the air, while holding
Online students do not see the
a pencil, following what the instructor
students in the classroom. And the
says. During the interaction, she takes
students in the classroom do not see
little notes on her note pad, in contrast
or communicate with them.
to her behavior in the classroom. S6 does not interact with the instructor through email or other means of communication during the presentation.
190 materials and objects, representing how the analysis was conducted in relation to students S1, S2, S3, S4 and S7. Table 20 presents the summary analysis of the Manufacturing Technology course, representing how the analysis was conducted in relation to the Environmental Management, Information Technology, Financial Markets, Computer Science, Communication, and Health Physics courses. In terms of use of media, modes and technology group four classes, the research revealed that both student and instructors had access to media and technology, but, like in the case of groups one and three, of a different kind. Group four instructors had access to: microphone to represent speech and amplify its capacity so they could be heard by all the students – traditional or online; podium where they stood and lectured so that their facial expressions, gestures and body movements were visible to all the students in the classroom; laptop computer, Power Point slides and a multimedia projector controlled by a remote control to display still image, graphs and written text to traditional and online students; and video camera to represent their image, speech and movement and stream these to online students. Group four students had access to: cell phones in silent mode to check written private messages, and desktop computers to watch and listen to the instructor‟s speech, facial expressions, above-the-waist gestures (usually the video camera would only capture from the waist up), movements, text and images. In relation to materials and objects, group four instructors had access to: yellow legal pads and pens to represent written text, and whiteboards and markers to represent written text in large scale, so that traditional and online students could see well. And group four students had access to: paper and pens to represent written text in the format of notes. In relation to the interactions that took place, group four instructors presented the content to the class
191 Table 20 Archival Material of Manufacturing Technology Online Course at the Target University Archival Material of Other Online Courses at Target University Major
Pedagogical
Media &
Other media
Approach
Technology
& Technology
Tools Used
Tools
Cycles
Available Manufacturing Lecture with slide
Video
Bulletin
One way,
Technology
show, group work
conferencing
Board, Email
Hands on,
(two groups working
(students see
Instructor and
Two way,
on two campi, each
each other and Students,
and
one working in a
instructor),
Calendar,
Feedback on
video conference
Notice Board,
Student
performance
room), group
Class List,
Homepage,
presentation
Online Video,
Bookmarking,
discussion and
Document
Chat
feedback, and
Download
individual homework
and Upload
assignment
192 through speech supported by either a slide show or notes written on the yellow pad or white boards that represented text and images, displayed and streamed through the video camera, exhibiting these modes of representation online. Also in the case of the instructors, on some occasions, some equipment was available, but not used. The students, in contrast, listened to speech during the instructor presentation, and represented written text in the format of notes. In terms of use of media and technology tools within group six online graduate classrooms, the research revealed that the majority of the different instructors mainly used media, and technology tools for lecturing online and displaying slides or notes made on the white board or yellow pad, just like the other observed Computer Science online classes, with two exceptions. The Manufacturing Technology instructor used technology to support interaction and discussion between two groups of students situated at two different university locations, but each group interacting FtF within itself. In addition, this instructor also gave oral feedback to these groups of students. The Health Physics instructor used technology to support student presentation, and to give feedback on performance. Looking at the affordances of the technologies of dissemination and representation within groups four and six, contrasting the ones used by instructor and student (in the cases when the students were not visible, their behavior was abstracted based on group four example), it was consistently found that instructors had significantly greater opportunities to use the different modes, media and technology, with the exception of two classes from group six - Manufacturing Technology and Health Physics. It is important to highlight, however, that the observed online students had a few
193 opportunities that they did not make use of, which were part of the system, although not embedded in the online lecture page, such as email and other synchronous or asynchronous communication tools, that could have allowed them, after pausing the online presentation, to represent written text and communicate with the instructor. And since the opportunity to communicate through the Internet exists, despite not being embedded in the class page, and was not utilized; the absence of communication exchanges can not be attributed only to the affordances of the available technologies of dissemination and representation. In this way, the communicational imbalance that was observed between instructors and online students can be said to be partially derived from the particular selection and use of modes, media and technology, and not because of the technological opportunities per se. In addition, it is noticed a relationship between the use of modes, media and technology made by the students and the way the class was set up, which implied particular opportunities for communication created by the instructor and perceived by the online students. In this way, across groups four and six, it is considered that the pedagogical design of the class, its affordances in terms of possibilities for action, and its affordances as perceived and selected by the student, impacted the outcome, which in this case was: communicational imbalance. In the case of the Manufacturing Technology and Health Physics classes, the instructors made other uses of technology and went beyond the lecture only format, towards opportunities for hands-on activity, two-way narrative construction, presentation, and instructor feedback. In theses cases, a communicational balance was observed. .
194 4.4
Multimodality and Learning Needs and Abilities within Traditional and Online Classrooms
Human interactions are multimodal in nature (Norris, 2004). From simple to complex forms of transferal of information, human beings draw on a multiplicity of communicative modes, such as facial expression, speech, gesture, gaze and writing to represent information, convey meaning and make sense of everyday experiences. And each of these multiple modes creates different possibilities and limitations for interaction and communication because each one forces individuals, whether intentionally or not, into making commitments about meaning. Within the learning process, either in traditional classrooms or online environments, multimodality helps shape learners‟ perceptions of what is being communicated to them. Additionally, through multimodality, learners interact with their context in ways that are visible to others, and by paying attention to how it is expressed in the learner‟s body, indications are found of how meaning making takes place and what some of the learning needs are. Combined with learning styles, abilities and learning needs of a learner, multimodality, or multiple modes of interaction within the four cycles of learning, allows building a solid learning profile, capable of informing pedagogical design. Regarding learning styles, they correspond to the “characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment” (Keefe, 1979, p.4). According to Leaver (1997), they combine: sensorial modalities, cognitive styles, personality types and environmental preferences. Learning styles have an influence on
195 learners‟ attitudes, values, degree of social interaction, and way of processing information, affecting academic performance. Research on the topic has been especially useful for offering insights on how learners‟ perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment. This sub-section was further divided into two parts: 4.4.1) Multimodality and Learning Styles, Abilities and Needs within Lecture Graduate Classrooms; and 4.4.2) Multimodality and Learning Styles, Abilities and Needs within Hands-On Graduate Classroom. 4.4.1
Multimodality and Learning Styles, Abilities and Needs within Lecture
Graduate Classrooms. This sub-section explores students‟ multimodality, learning styles, abilities and needs within groups one, three and four. Figures 49 and 50 present selected instances of students S2 and S3 interaction within group one, representing how the analysis and instance selection was conducted with students S1, S4, S5, S6, S7 and S8. Figures 51 and 52 present selected instances from students T6 and T7 interaction within group three, representing how the analysis was conducted in relation to students T8, T9, T10 and T11. And figures 53 and 54 present selected instances of students S1 and S7 within group four classrooms, representing who the analysis was conducted in relation to students S2, S3, S4, S5 and S6. In terms of students‟ multimodality within groups one, three and four classes, the predominance of a single modality was not found. Instead, multiple modes were present, with lots of variation from one student to the other. Among the main modalities that were observed amongst the group one students were: gaze (forward at the instructor, upward at the TV monitor displaying learning materials, downward at the paper, here and there, and
196 nowhere), handwriting (from occasional to extensive and from class to non-class related), body movement (restless in-place leg movement), speech (none to frequent), body posture (rare to frequent changing back posture), mouse clicking (none to occasional) and laptop keyboard typing (none to occasional). Among the main modalities that were present amongst the group three students were: gaze (forward to the instructor or large screen displaying slides of learning materials, or downward to the computer screen), handwriting (from occasional to extensive), doodling, body movement (leg moving, crossing and shaking, stretching), speech (none to occasional), body posture, mouse clicking, laptop keyboard typing and tablet laptop digital highlighting and handwriting. Among the main modalities that were present amongst the group four students were: gaze (forward at the screen, here and there, and nowhere), handwriting (from occasional to extensive), body movement (restless in-place leg movement), body posture (rare to frequent changing back posture), mouse clicking and laptop keyboard typing. In the case of group one, the modes that were best accommodated in the observed classrooms were: gaze, handwriting, laptop keyboard typing, mouse clicking, body posture, and in-place body movement. The one that was most poorly accommodated was speech. In the case of group three, the modes that were best accommodated in the observed classrooms were: gaze, handwriting, laptop keyboard typing, tablet laptop digital highlighting and handwriting, mouse clicking, body posture, and in-place body movement. The ones that were most poorly accommodated were whole-body movement and speech. In the case of group four, the modes that were best accommodated in the observed classrooms were: gaze, listening, handwriting, laptop keyboard typing, mouse
197 clicking, body posture, and in-place body movement. The one that was most poorly accommodated was whole-body movement. Opportunities for speech were not present.
Student S2 Instance 1 – GAZE AT THE TV MONITOR INSTEAD OF INSTRUCTOR 02:40 One-Way Delivery of Information, Traditional Class [Small Classroom] S2 sits on the first row, at the right corner of the classroom, in which 11 other students sit. Right in front of him, above his head, is a large TV monitor attached to the wall. The instructor sits at the front central area, behind a desk, where she uses her notebook to display a Slide Show, projected on the TV monitor and streamed to online students. At the back of the classroom a camera also captures her image and streams it online. During the class, the instructor talks continuously and displays her slides on the TV monitor. In her presentation, she asks several questions, to which NO student answers, during the entire class; in this way, the instructor answers the questions herself. During this interaction, while the instructor displays the slides and explains them, S2 looks mainly at the monitor, where he can see the slides, but sometimes his head turns from one side to the other, from the instructor to the TV monitor. He takes notes now and then, shakes his legs frenetically, and does not make a lot of eye contact with the instructor.S2 falls asleep several times during the observation, but all other students seem to be alert.
Figure 49. Instance One of Student S2 Traditional Modes of Interaction within Traditional Cycles of Learning
Within groups one, three and four, these collections of modes of representation, especially the predominance of in-place body movement with few opportunities for speech, supports earlier findings regarding students being in the position of recipients of information, and shows the state of passivity or limited opportunities for action and mobility in which the students were found. That supports earlier findings regarding the predominance of imbalanced communication and lack of opportunities for collaboration. Within group four, most of the online students presented similar modes to those used in FtF interaction of group one, except for S2 and S6. In their case, the fewer opportunities provided by the online environment for interaction had an effect on their behavior,
198
Student S3 Instance 1 – PROBLEM SOLVING AND PARTICIPATION 03:35 One-Way Delivery of Information, Traditional Class [Small Classroom]
The instructor presents a problem, writing it on the whiteboard, and calls for the participation of the students to solve it by asking them questions. A female India student [S6] speaks the most when prompted by the instructor, and frequently answers questions. S3 looks at the board, and uses the pen on his hand to make calculations in the air. He answers some of the questions to himself, by moving his lips and speaking softly, and now and then risks answering the questions louder, for the instructor to hear, and always get them right. Other soft voices are noticeable in the class, as students shyly participate and answer the questions. A lot of nodding is also apparent, indicating that the students are making sense of the problem being solved, that the topic is clear and that the combination of problem solving with questions and answers works well for a good number of the students in the class. Instructor: “How far I am from termination right now before I um? How far? Can you measure how far I, we are from termination? How far are we from termination? How many/ Female student in the class [S6]: “/Depends …/” Instructor: “How many steps do we need to take? And in this case it is relatively easy because it is it is exact, it is not [unintelligible] bound. Female student in the class : “It is minus y/…” Instructor: “/That is minus y” Female student in the class: “plus y minus z/…” Instructor: “/plus y minus z…” S3: [nods] Female student in the class: “plus y minus/…” Instructor: “/plus y minus…” S3: “z…” Instructor: “/plus” S3: “z minus” Female student in the class: “z minus” Instructor: “z minus …” S3: “t” Instructor: “t, so that is how far we are from termination.”
Figure 50. Instance One of Student S3 Traditional Modes of Interaction within Traditional Cycles of Learning
especially S6, who talked a lot in the traditional classroom and had no opportunity to do the same in the online environment.
199 Looking at learning styles – specifically the six sensorial modalities or sensorial preferences for intake of information (visual verbal, visual imagistic, auditory aural, auditory oral, motor mechanic and motor kinesthetic), consistent patterns were found. Giving values 3, 2 or 1 to students primary, fairly and least used sensorial preferences for intake or output of information, within group one, a dominance of motor preference was found, 18 out of 45 – equally split into gross motor or kinesthetic and fine motor or mechanic, tightly followed by visual, 17 out of 45 – combining verbal and imagistic, which could not be distinguished clearly due to the nature of the class. The auditory modality was least frequently found amongst students, 10 out of 45, and a high dominance of aural preference over oral preference was found, 8 to 2. Within group three, a dominance of visual preference was found, 16 out of 37 – combining verbal and imagistic, followed by the auditory modality, 13 out of 37, with a high dominance of aural preference over oral preference, 10 to 3. The motor modality was least frequently found amongst students, 8 out of 37, and a high dominance of mechanic preference over kinesthetic preference was found, 7 to 1. Within group four, which includes a major part of students within group one, a dominance of visual preference was found, 17 out of 42 – combining verbal and imagistic, which could not be distinguished clearly due to the nature of the class. These were tightly followed by motor preferences, 15 out of 42 – almost equally split into fine motor or mechanic and gross motor or kinesthetic, 8 to 7. The auditory modality was least frequently found amongst students, 10 out of 42, with expression of only aural preferences. In this way, group one students seemed to exhibit the predominance of motor and visual preferences, and a minority of auditory, especially oral, preference. Group three
200
Student T6 Instance 1 – MULTITASKING AND DOODLING: CLASS AND WWW 08:43 One-Way Delivery of Information Traditional Class [“l” Classroom] T6 sits in a big “l” shaped classroom together with 18 other students. This is the first week of class. The instructor asks all the students to sit at one side of the “l” and starts the lecture, opening the Power Point presentation and introducing the topic of the class. Next he asks all the students to introduce themselves and talk about their reasons to take the class and their expectations. After the introductions, the instructor talks about the goals of the 7 weeks course and goes on explaining the slides, which are usually about broad concepts, sometimes containing graphs and tables. He tells a lot of stories and several students ask questions as he speaks. T6 starts the class by paying exclusive attention to the lecture. Soon enough, she starts doodling on a piece of paper, keeping her head down and rarely looking at the instructor. Later she opens her notebook, and browses for a while. At this point of the class, she leaves browsing aside to take notes about what the instructor is saying. Next she returns to browsing.
Figure 51. Student T6 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning: Instance One
students seemed to exhibit the predominance of visual and auditory preferences, and a minority of motor, especially kinesthetic, preference. And group four students seemed to exhibit the predominance of visual and motor preferences, and a minority of auditory preference. Learning needs seem, partially, to have a close relationship with learning styles or preferences. It is evident, however that preferences for sensorial intake of information only translate to a small part of learning needs. The small segment of learning needs that could be extracted from the information in this sub-section is that: the observed group one students exhibited a greater need for fine/gross motor and verbal/imagistic output and input; group three students exhibited a greater need for visual verbal/imagistic and
201 auditory aural input and fine/gross motor and auditory oral output; and group four students exhibited a greater need for verbal/imagistic and visual fine/gross motor input and output. Considering, in the case of groups one and four, that the opportunities for motor engagement - except for in-place, individual body movement, such as in leg shaking, handwriting, mouse clicking and keyboard typing - were practically nonexistent, it is clear that these students were the ones that were least accommodated by the pedagogical design of the class. Within group three, the motor students were the second least well accommodated, and the auditory oral the first, since the opportunities for this latter type of engagement – except for answering brief questions or making brief comments on what the instructor presented - were practically nonexistent. In the case of all these three groups, the teacher approach in a class where the one-way delivery of information cycle of learning was predominant, with lecture, writing on the white boards and slide show, and questions and answers seemed to best accommodate the auditory aural students, who seemed to be a minority within groups one and four and the majority within group three. Secondly, it seemed to accommodate the visual verbal, and not imagistic, students within groups one and four, since the majority of the visual information presented was in the form of text, and not images. The one-way cycle of learning, in this way, mainly accommodated: lecture – which best serves auditory aural students; writing on white boards – which best serves visual verbal students; and slide show – which serves visual imagistic and verbal students. The instructors of the three groups also dedicated a small section of the class to teacher-student two-way narrative construction, in the form of questions and answers – which best serves auditory oral and aural students. Group three
202
Student T7 Instance 1 – LISTENING IN A CASUAL AND RELAXED POSITION AND STOPPING TO BROWSE THE WEB 06:35 One-Way Delivery of Information Traditional Class [“l” Classroom] T7 sits in the same big “l” shaped classroom together with T6 and 17 other students, all at one side of the “l”. This is the second week of class. T7 sits comfortably on his chair, away from the desk, supporting his head with both hands and placing all his weight on the back of the chair that bends backwards. The instructor adopts the same teaching style as the previous week when T6 was observed, combining lecture, Power Point presentation, stories and questions. He starts the class by talking about the students‟ homework, commenting on most of the answers the students gave and asking them questions. T7 keeps his laptop open from beginning to end, getting out of his comfortable position to browse the Internet now and then. In the beginning of the class, he opens the class website, and downloads the instructor‟s slides. Later he opens Yahoo! to check email, checks stocks and reads the news. During the class, T7 mainly listens, and does not take any notes. He talks now and then, and seems comfortable doing so, making comments, and asking and answering questions.
Figure 52. Student T7 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning: Instance One
instructor also dedicated an extremely small section of the class to feedback on performance, in the form of oral feedback to homework assignment of most of the students – which best serves auditory aural students. No portion of these three groups classes was dedicated to hands-on practice – which best serves motor mechanic and kinesthetic students; and, in the case of groups one and four, no time was dedicated to feedback on performance. Examining some of the learner abilities, the adaptive behavior of learners to the class approach was the most prominent. Within groups one and four, especially noticeable was the case of motor kinesthetic learners, who seemed to consistently use leg
203 shaking as a strategy to release kinesthetic energy and keep engaged on class. Such strategy, however, was not always efficient, since several circumstances were found with motor students falling asleep during the one-way delivery of information. Within group three, especially noticeable was the case of motor mechanic learners, who seemed to consistently use doodling, handwriting and mouse clicking to release mechanic energy and keep engaged on class.
Student S1 Instance 1 – FALLING ASLEEP IN THE ONLINE CLASS 05:25 One-Way Delivery of Information Online Class [Computer Lab] Forty-five minutes after the beginning of the online session, S1falls asleep for a few seconds and wakes up again. Fighting against his eyes that keep closing, he goes on with his engagement strategies, rotating the chair from one side to the other rhythmically. Like in the traditional classroom, he does not keep a lot of eye contact with the instructor, in this case, displayed at the computer screen. S1 mainly listens, while keeping his arms crossed around his waist. In addition, he often nods with his head facing down or, occasionally, looking at the screen, demonstrating that he is paying attention and that he is making sense of what the instructor is saying. He also shakes his legs up and down frenetically, when he is not rotating the chair, and sometimes he does them all together. Now and then he clicks the mouse, but does not take any notes.
Figure 53. Student S1 Modes of Interaction within Online Cycles of Learning, Instance One
Looking together at multiple modes of representation within the four cycles of learning, learner abilities, learning styles and learning needs, consistent implications were found
204 for pedagogical design. One of the main implications in regard to modalities is the need for more opportunities for whole-body interaction and manual activities, which are not
Student S7 Instance 1 – MULTITASKING ON THE LAPTOP: LECTURE, YAHOO! AND NOTES 02:25 One-Way Delivery of Information Online Class [Library] S7 logins on the library laptop and opens the course page on Blackboard platform. With her hands on the keyboard, S7 opens Yahoo! Page. On her lap, a binder with power point printed pages. S7 crosses her arms and listens to the lecture. Students are presenting their projects and one at a time they and their Power Point presentations appear on the screen. S7 opens a document on top of the lecture window. Then she clicks back on the lecture, crosses legs and gets papers from the binder. S7 listens to student presentation, but takes notes on a paper with content appearing different from the one on the screen. While the lecture goes on, she opens browser window and then closes. Her cell phone is on top of the table, screen up, on silent mode. Later on she checks on it. And like this, she goes on for about an hour and a quarter, doing several things at once.
Figure 54. Student S7 Modes of Interaction within Online Cycles of Learning, Instance One
typical in one-way delivery of information learning cycles, but are more common in hands-on practice and performance learning cycle. Another implication is the need for smaller lectures, or smaller chunks of lectures alternated with other activities, to not strain motor students with long periods without action. Additionally, opportunities for interacting verbally are necessary, not only with the instructor, but also with peers. Moreover, the need for visualizing learning materials – text and images – and listening to content presentation seem important as well. Overall, indications were found for the need to remove students from a passive position, to one of active engagement in meaning construction, where a single approach, such as lecture, does not dominate the entire class
205 or course. Rather, a rich combination of approaches should prevail. As discussed earlier, it is more likely that a single approach is not able to provide the richness of experiences that the students need to construct meaning and learn. Once more, by introducing a combination of the four learning cycles, not necessarily in equal proportions, into pedagogical design, more opportunities become available to students to interact multimodally, and not only get support to their preferred ways for sensorial intake of information, but also to develop style flexibility (Leaver, 1997). Within groups one, three and four classes, one example is highlighted here: T6‟s class, within group three. In the case of the Design lecture graduate classroom (Figure 51), student T6 started the class by paying exclusive attention to it, listening to the lecture and looking at the instructor and slides. She answered one of the instructor‟s questions regarding her background and expectations of the course. Soon enough, she started zoning in and out of the class by doodling on a piece of paper, and using her computer to browse the Web and check email, while keeping her head down and rarely looking at the instructor, and then listening and looking at the instructor again and taking a few notes. In terms of modes of interaction within the four cycles of learning, student T6 interacted with her context mainly through downward gaze, mouse clicking and keyboard typing, doodling, occasional handwriting, and little speech within the class where instructorstudent one-way delivery of information predominated. The implications for pedagogical design in regard to modalities are the need for opportunities for visualizing learning content, for listening to content presentation, for fine motor movement, such as in typing and material manipulation, and for speaking.
206 4.4.2
Multimodality and Learning Styles, Abilities and Needs within Hands-On
Graduate Classroom. This sub-section explores the group two students‟ multimodality, learning needs and abilities. Figures 55 and 57 present, each one, four instances of students T1 and T4, one within each cycle of learning, representing how the analysis was conducted and represented in relation to students T2, T3 and T5. And figures 56 and 58 present selected instances from these two selected students. In terms of students‟ multimodality within group two classes, again the predominance of a single modality was not found. Instead, once more, multiple modes were found, with lots of variation from one student to the others. Amongst the main modalities that were present across the students were: body movement (enactment, and chair swiveling), material manipulation, speech (one-to-one, to one-to-many), vocal characterizer (laughing), gaze (forward to the instructor or classmates, and downward to the paper or computer screen), handwriting (from seldom to occasional), body posture (rare to frequently changing back posture), gesture, facial expression, proxemics, mouse clicking and laptop keyboard typing. All modes were well accommodated in the observed classroom. This collection of modes of representation, with varied opportunities for body movement and speech, supports earlier findings regarding this model of classroom allowing rich meaning construction, with predominance of balanced communication and rich opportunities for collaboration. Looking at learning styles – specifically the six sensorial modalities or sensorial preferences for intake of information (visual verbal, visual imagistic, auditory aural, auditory oral, motor mechanic and motor kinesthetic), consistent patterns were found. Giving values 3, 2 or 1 to students‟ primary, fairly and least used sensorial preferences
[Group Work] T1 uses measuring tape to check the size of card readers, doors and walls, in order to build a physical prototype in group to be presented later in the class. She enacts the use of the card reader they are prototyping in order to observe how she would use the object herself. This information is used in the making of the prototype.
11:37 Hands-On Practice
12:35 Feedback on Performance [Classroom] Instructor gives feedback on T1 group prototype. T1 presents along with her group. The instructor makes reference to the card reader prototype the group built: “This this is a nice representation of it. It says that the target looks 7 inches square, but it is actually 2 inches square and 5 inches from the wall.”
11:10 Two-Way Narrative Construction [Group Work] T1 discusses with group members how the card reader prototype should be built. One of the students (KR1) sketches their idea while they are discussing. Student KR1: “For me aa this distance is important cause sometimes I do not a it doesn‟t work.” Student KR2: “Cause it doesn‟t reach. Ya.”
Figure 55. Student T1 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning
[Classroom] T1 seats in the last row of the classroom with her notebook closed and listens to the group presentations and to the Instructor without making notes or raising her hands to ask/reply to questions or to make comments. She gently swivels the chair from one side to another and now and then speaks softly by the ear of the student next to her.
12:11 One-Way Delivery of Information
207
Figure 56. Student T1 Instance 1 Multimodal Communication Representation
208
[Group Work] T2 explores the Lego and hardware pieces (levelers, washers, rods, etc.) provided by Instructor A to accomplish his group assignment. He manipulates different pieces, such as blocks and rubber bands, and looks for particular ones (blocks with particular dimensions and rubber bands with particular thicknesses) in order to complete the task.
11:07 Hands-On Practice
12:05 Feedback on Performance [Classroom] T2 did not present his group work (he did, though, on the previous day, i.e., day 1, group E), only US1 presented for his group on this day [the second class]. During US1 presentation, [Instructor] “So, the middle one [rubber band] is theoretical?” [US1] “No, we actually played with the rubber bands until it felt right.” During T2 presentation on day 1: “Umm. So, E was “method of adjustments”. And basically you started on your highest high and came down to your lowest low, until you figured it right.
11:14 Two-Way Narrative Construction [Group Work] While T2 interacts with his group and explores levelers and rods, he also engages in twoway narrative construction, trying to figure out collectively what they need to find in the materials box and accomplish. US1: “So, the idea here is to use these levers with these rods on.” T2: Ya, but they have to similarly spaced. Like they all look the same?” IN2: “Do you mean they have the same focal point?” US1: “Probably.”
Figure 57. Student T2 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning
[Classroom] T2 seats in the second row of the right side of the classroom with his notebook open. He browses the Internet, checks e-mail and listens to Instructor A at the same time, leaving the computer behind now and then to take notes with pen and paper. He takes his shoes off and makes himself comfortable, while he keeps on multitasking.
09:21 One-Way Delivery of Information
209
Figure 58. Student T2 Instance 2 Multimodal Communication Representation
210
211 for intake or output of information, a dominance of motor preference was found, 13 out of 29 – with predominance of fine motor or mechanic, 8 out of 13, over gross motor or kinesthetic, 5 over 13. Motor preferences were followed by a pairing of visual and auditory, 8 out of 29 – the first combining verbal and imagistic, and the second with high dominance of oral over aural preference, 6 over 2. The observed Design hands-on workshop students, in this way, seemed to exhibit the predominance of motor preference, and a minority of visual and auditory preferences. Learning needs seem, partially, to have a close relationship with learning styles or preferences. It is evident, as mentioned, however, that preferences for sensorial intake of information only translate to a small part of learning needs. The small segment of learning needs that could be extracted from the information in this sub-section is that the observed students exhibited a greater need for fine/gross motor output, and, secondarily of visual and auditory input and output. Considering that the opportunities for motor engagement were extensive in the observed Design hands-on workshop, it is clear that these students were well accommodated by the pedagogical design of the class. The teacher approach in a class where the one-way delivery of information cycle of learning was predominant - but with presence of handson practice and performance, two-way narrative construction, and feedback on performance - seemed to accommodate well a variety of student profiles and learning preferences. The one-way cycle of learning, in this way, mainly accommodated: lecture – which best serves auditory aural students; sketching and writing under the video camera, and display of digital documents and web pages on a large screen through a multimedia projector – which best serves visual verbal and imagistic students; and demonstrations –
212 which serves visual imagistic and verbal, and to auditory aural students. The instructor also dedicated a section of the class to hands-on practice and performance – which not only best serves motor mechanic and kinesthetic students, but also auditory oral and aural students, as well as visual imagistic. A section of the class was also dedicated to two-way narrative construction, usually in integration with the hands-on practice and performance section – best serving auditory oral and aural, and motor mechanic and kinesthetic students. Additionally, a section of the class was dedicated to feedback on performance – which, since it was only delivered in oral format, best serves auditory aural students. Examining some learner abilities, the adaptive behavior of a part of the learners to the class approach was still prominent. Especially noticeable was the case of motor kinesthetic learners during the longer lecture periods, when several seemed to consistently use leg shaking as a strategy to release kinesthetic energy and keep focused on the lecture. During two-way narrative construction, some domination patterns were found between professionally experienced and young students, and between U.S. and international students. Additionally, male U.S. students spoke the most during these classes. That indicates the need for students to develop better communication strategies, to receive a set of instructions regarding group dynamics, and/or to have some of the group interactions mediated by the instructor, and/or to have the instructor inspire students to ask more questions. Looking together at multiple modes of representation within the four cycles of learning, learner abilities, learning styles and learning needs, consistent implications were found for pedagogical design. One of the main implications for pedagogical design in regard to modalities is the need for more balance amongst the opportunities that were available within the four cycles of learning. Another implication
213 is the need for smaller lectures, or smaller chunks of lectures alternated with other activities, to not strain motor students with long periods without action. Additionally, orientation for students to take more advantage of the opportunities to interact verbally seems necessary. Moreover, social, cultural and conversational strategies seem to be lacking in some students, who, perhaps, need to receive supervision or guidance in that regard. Overall, indications were found for the need to balance the learning opportunities more. However, the presence of two-way narrative construction, hands-on practice, and feedback on performance, together with one-way delivery of information, were already sufficient to make the class much more lively and active than in the case of groups one, three and four. Consequently, rich opportunities for engagement in meaning construction were present through a combination of teaching approaches, such as lecture, image projection, prototyping activity, student presentation and immediate feedback on performance. Within group two classes, one example is highlighted here: T2‟s class. In the case of the Design hands-on graduate workshop (Figure 57, column 1), student T2, during one-way delivery of information, kept his laptop and paper notebook open, and listened to the instructor‟s lecture, while doing several things at once – browsing the Web, checking email, taking hand notes regarding the lecture, and talking to the student next to him. In terms of modes of interaction within the four cycles of learning, student T2 interacted with his context mainly through computer screen gaze, mouse clicking, keyboard typing, occasional soft conversation, listening to instructor, occasional handwriting and changing body posture. During the hands-on practice (Figure 57, column 2), student T2 explored Lego blocks and hardware materials (levelers, washers, rods and
214 rubber bands). In terms of modes of interaction within the four cycles of learning, student T2 interacted with his context mainly through forward gaze, manipulation of materials and whole body movement. During the two-way narrative construction (Figure 57, column 3), student T2 and his group discussed their ideas about which materials should be used to build the prototype. During the discussion, they experimented with some of the materials available. In terms of modes of interaction within the four cycles of learning, student T2 interacted with his context mainly through gaze, manipulation of materials and conversation. During the feedback on performance of the previous day (Figure 57, column 4), student T2 presented the group work alone, using speech, downward gaze, and fluid body movement to explain the group prototype and enact its use. He also listened to the instructor‟s feedback and replied to his answers, using speech, gesture and body movement. In terms of modes of interaction within the four cycles of learning, student T2 interacted with his context mainly through speech, body movement and listening.
4.5
Purposes, Desires and Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments.
A view of learning always reflects underlying learning theories. In the present research, it was assumed that learning is situated in particular socio-cultural contexts, and it is the result of mediated experiences that are afforded (Gibson, 1986) or constrained by interactions with the situation (King, Young, Drivere-Richmond and Schrader, 2001). In this way, it is considered that the possibilities and limitations for action of particular situations affect learning.
215 This sub-section presents the interview data from groups one/four, two, three and five (Table 2) in order to identify purposes, desires, needs, abilities and modes of interaction of students. In this way, it is further divided into nine parts: 4.5.1) Views of learning; 4.5.2) Memorable Learning Experiences; 4.5.3) Learning Profile and Style Awareness; 4.5.4) Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning; 4.5.5) Pedagogical Design; 4.5.6) Space and Learning; 4.5.7) Traditional Versus Online Classrooms; 4.5.8) Special Instructors; and 4.5.9) Perceptions of the Future of Learning. 4.5.1. Views of Learning. This sub-section explores the views of learning within groups one/four, two, three and five interviews. Table 21, 22, 23 and 24 highlight a small portion of some of the main answers given by the students. In terms of views of learning within combined groups one and four, the research revealed that the students described learning as: an experience, or a process of transformation or development, from less to more understanding of things, which in turn can be applied to real life.
Table 21 Students Views of Learning within the Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms or Combined Groups One and Four Views of Learning Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Knowledge
S5 (1&4)
1
“Learning is like acquiring knowledge […].”
S6 (1&4)
1
“Getting things, clearly understanding the
Acquisition Cognitive Process
things.”
216 Views of Learning Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Developmental S4 (1&4)
“Learning is to develop ourselves, to develop
1
knowledge and improve everything, including our culture. Learning makes us alive.”
Table 22 Students Views of Learning within the Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop or Group Two Views of Learning Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group Number
Self Expansion
T4 (2)
1
“The chance, the chance to sort of expand myself, my frame of reference. To grow and change as a person.”
Communication T5 (2)
1
“Like, walking into a building, sitting in a classroom is obviously learning, um, having a conversation with a friend is learning. It is exchange of ideas, I think.”
Multidimensional
T1 (2)
2
“I try to keep myself open um not only about like learning but also kind of emotional context and personality […] it is all connected.”
217 Table 23 Students Views of Learning within the Design Lecture Traditional Classroom or Group Three Views of Learning Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Information
T7 (3)
1
“Learning is about […] being exposed to
Acquisition
some information you did not have access before.”
Cognitive
T7 (3)
“Learning is about gaining insight on how to
1
do something in a new way […].”
Process Related to
T8 (3)
“Learning is […] to know more something
1
Performance
that can help me perform better, not only professionally.” T9 (3)
“Learning is about […] connecting thinking
1
and doing.”
Table 24 Students Views of Learning within the Field Research Graduate Classrooms from Different Academic Departments or Group Five Views of Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Interaction
F3 (5)
1
Answer
“Interacting with the kids.”
218 Views of Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Communication
F8 (5)
1
Answer
“Talking to people is a very good way to learn, not only about your field, but also about a lot of different stuff.”
Activity Related
F1 (5)
1
“My main learning activity is working on the projects assigned to me for my classes.”
In terms of views of learning within group two, the research revealed that the students described learning as an interactive, people to people process that can occur anywhere, where exchange of ideas occurs, producing a state of expanded, and often times multi-dimensional, understanding about someone, something or a process. In terms of views of learning within group three, the research revealed that the students described learning as the process of acquiring and cognitively processing new multi-dimensional information of different types, such as factual, procedural, and which can be translated into action or practice. In terms of views of learning within group five, the research revealed that the students described learning as a process, either goal-oriented or not and fun or not, of interacting with media or communicating with people, and acquiring new information or knowledge of different types, such as quotidian or academic.
219 4.5.2. Memorable Learning Experiences. This sub-section explores best and worst memorable learning experiences within group five. Table 25 highlights a small portion of some of the main answers given by the students. In terms of best and worst memorable learning experiences within group five, it was found that the students included in their description of positive memorable learning experiences: feedback from classmates and instructor on projects, opportunities for group discussion, tangible demonstrations, didactic and multimodal explanation of content, and positive personal interactions, amongst others. Interest and motivation were associated with the origin of some of these positive memories. Included amongst the students‟ negative memorable learning experiences were: pedagogic unsound classes (learning objectives unrelated to learning activities), classes with focus on low order skills, extreme pressure on performance, and negative personal interactions (such as humiliating experiences). Demands on learning content that the subject had no interest in, or was not motivated to learn, were associated with the origin of some of these memories. Additionally, a mismatch between teaching goals and student‟s own learning goals was also pointed as cause for some of these negative memories.
Table 25 Students Memorable Learning Experiences within the Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group Five Memorable Learning Experiences Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Positive
F1 (5)
2
Answer
“[…] The feedback I receive from fellow
220 Memorable Learning Experiences Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Positive
F1 (5)
2
Answer
students and teachers while presenting a big project or assignment. So it is sort of feedback or questions I receive, are pretty memorable.”
F3 (5)
2
“[…] Teachers making analogy to day-to-day things. That helps me keep things in my mind.”
Negative
F4 (5)
2
“The worst I have taken: don't ask why, just memorize.”
F11 (5)
2
“Oh, you always remember the most negative one. I was in 3rd grade and I was put in the slow reading group. […] It was very humiliating. […] Still bugs me today.”
4.5.3. Learning Profile and Style Awareness. This sub-section explores learning profile and style awareness within groups one/four, two, three and five. Tables 26, 27, 28 and 29 highlight small portions of some of the main answers given by the students. In terms of learning profiles and style awareness within groups one/four, the research revealed the predominance of auditory preference as the primary sensorial modality for intake of information. From the sentences and list of action verbs (Leaver, 1997) utilized by these students - such as „I like to listen‟, „I think when I hear more, I
221 Table 26 Students Learning Profile and Style Awareness within Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms, or Combined Groups One and Four Learning Profile and Style Awareness Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Auditory Aural
S3 (1&4)
2
Learner
Answer
“I just listen […]. I usually don‟t ask questions; just listen to the prof and the other students‟ questions.”
Auditory Oral
S6 (1&4)
2
“I like to interact, to listen and be able to ask what I don‟t understand.”
Learner
Table 27 Students Learning Profile and Style Awareness within the Design Hands-On Workshop, or Group Two Learning Profile and Style Awareness Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Auditory
T1 (2)
2
“I usually try to listen. I think that is one of the best ways to learn.”
Learner Visual Learner
Answer
T2 (2)
8
“[I]t helps visualize the information […].”
222 Learning Profile and Style Awareness Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Motor Learner
T4 (2)
2
Answer
“I could not get through the presentation yesterday. So, in order for me to be like engaged, I had to be the one typing everything. Then I could like focus on the project. And I gained a lot more from that than just listening.”
Table 28 Students Learning Profile and Style Awareness within the Design Lecture Graduate Classroom or Group Three Learning Profile and Style Awareness Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Auditory Oral
T8 (3)
2
T7 (3)
2
“I tend to do a lot more reading. I understand that way […].”
Learner Motor Learner
“I like listening, but I get tired after a while. It needs verbal exchange.‟
Learner Visual Verbal
Answer
T6 (3)
2
“I feel that I learn best when I am physically making things. That is when I have the most
223 Learning Profile and Style Awareness Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Motor Learner
T6 (3)
2
Answer
fun. It is also most interesting to me. I also, in this way, learn best when I am being shown exactly what to do.” […] “I am also a doodler. I guess I was drawing whenever I had my computer shut. Ha ha.”
Table 29 Students Learning Profile and Style Awareness within the Field Research Graduate Classrooms from Different Academic Departments or Group Five Learning Profile and Style Awareness Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Auditory
F10 (5)
7
Learner
Answer
“I seldom take notes. It actually distracts me. I like to listen to understand what is going on.”
Visual Learner
F3 (5)
7
“I also like seeing imaging than just reading sentences I am more a visual learner.”
Motor Learner
F6 (5)
7
“My audio channel is imperfect and my memory isn't perfect. So I cannot learn
224 Learning Profile and Style Awareness Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Motor Learner
F6 (5)
7
Answer
through my audio channel without my physical channel taking notes. […] I cannot attend to lectures and not take notes and learn. Its kind of the way I am built actually.”
learn more‟, „In a lecture classroom I just watch‟, and „I think it is better to write down to remember‟ - it is suggestive that these students usually had a good general sense of their own sensorial preferences. In addition, the need for pacing one‟s own learning, the ability to learn independently or to adjust to different learning contexts, the difficulty in recalling recent learned content, and the ease with the use of technology were expressed. Within group two, the research revealed a good balance amongst the different sensorial preferences for intake of information. From the sentences and list of verbs utilized by these students -such as „I just try to listen‟, „I like to talk‟, „It helps to represent the information‟, „In order for me to be […] engaged, I had to […] type everything‟, and „I think that I learn by doing‟ - it is suggestive that these students had a good general sense of their own sensorial preferences. In addition, cognitive styles such as global and inductive thinking were present, together with the need for multiple simultaneous input
225 modes and the difficulty in keeping engaged when information is presented for a long period of time in a particular least-preferred mode, such as auditory, leading to constant zoning in and out of the class. Suggestions that memory problems can be connected to difficulties related to intake of information through a particular sensorial mode were also encountered. Furthermore, examples of discomfort with the trial and error approach, in opposition to the demonstration approach, were found, together with the need to support team work and time management skills. The need for tapping into student interest and motivation, and for linking theory and practice through, for instance, case studies and examples appear to be important aspects to concentrate upon. Within group three, the research revealed a good balance between visual and motor sensorial preferences for intake of information, and a minor presence of auditory preference. From the sentences and list of verbs utilized by these students - such as „I like listening but I get tired after a while‟, „I tend to do a lot more reading - I understand that way‟, and „I feel that I learn best when I am physically doing something‟ - it is suggestive that these students had a good general sense of their own sensorial preferences. In addition, the difficulty in keeping engaged when information is presented for a long period of time in a particular least-preferred mode, such as auditory, appeared again, leading once more to constant zoning in and out of the class, through, for instance, use of Internet and computer technologies, which allow motor output. Suggestions that memory problems can be connected to difficulties related to intake of information through a particular sensorial mode were encountered again. Additionally, an ease with the trial and error approach was found in this group. Furthermore, the need for linking theory and
226 practice through, for instance, case studies and examples appeared once more as an important aspect. Within group five, the research revealed a good balance between visual and motor sensorial preferences for intake of information, and a minor presence of auditory preference amongst the students that revealed their preferences during the interview. A good part of the students did not express a preference through their answers. From the sentences and list of verbs utilized by the group of students that talked about their preferences - such as „I learn best not only reading but also listening‟, „I seldom take notes, it actually distracts me‟, and „I think I learn best through hands on learning practice‟ - it is suggestive that part of the students had a good general sense of their own sensorial preferences. In addition, the need for clear goals was present. Furthermore, the need for tapping into student interest and motivation, and for working with students at their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotski, 1978) was found. Finally, the need for linking theory and practice was noted once again as an important aspect. 4.5.4. Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning. This sub-section explores the relationships between interaction, communication and learning within groups one/four, two, three and five. Tables 30, 31, 32 and 33 highlight small portions of some of the main answers given by the students. In terms of interaction and communication, and their relationship to learning within groups one/four, the research revealed that the majority of the students, who take both traditional and online classes, affirmed that the FtF class is more interactive, and that it affords students to ask questions and clarify doubts. According to the students, the online class not only does not allow students to immediately ask questions, but only
227 allows delayed communication through text. The majority of the students said to take advantage of the after-class opportunity to meet the instructor face-to-face and clarify doubts. Some of them, also said to meet other students after-class to discuss their doubts FtF. In terms of interaction, communication and relationship to learning within group two, the research revealed that the students affirmed that the classes supported: studentinstructor direct interaction, although the time for that was not enough; student-student interaction; instructor-student immediate feedback; student participation; and team work. A need to support cross cultural communication among the students was observed.
Table 30 Students Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning within the Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms or Combined Groups One and Four Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF Class is
S1 (1&4)
5
Answer
“In the live class we have the chance to
More
interact more with the professor. […] In the
Interactive
iTV we see the TV monitor. I miss the personal interaction […].”
FtF Class has
S6 (1&4)
4
“In the live class we can ask the professor
Immediate
as he speaks, we can immediately ask,
Feedback
immediately question.”
228 Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF Class has
S2 (1&4)
8
Answer
“[W]hen I go to a live class, I see many
Student-
students. I meet many students that are in
Student
the same class. I discuss with them the
Interaction
issues, the projects. So, that experience is much better.”
Online is Less
S2 (1&4)
“But in the online session I cannot have
6
Interactive
interaction, so I write down some questions that I need to ask the instructor or the T.A.”
Table 31 Students Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning within Design Hands-On Graduate Classroom or Group Two Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF Class has More
T3 (2)
7
Answer
“But, in the class, [… he] makes
Student-Instructor
very specific comments on what you
Direct Interaction
are talking about. […] make us think […].”
229 Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF Class has
T2 (2)
7
Answer
“[…] The interaction gives me more of
Student-Student
the learning. […] I interact with my
Interaction
classmates. I think what is fun is trying to collaborate with them on learning.”
Table 32 Students Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning within Design Lecture Graduate Classroom or Group Three Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
In FtF Class,
T6 (3)
6
Answer
“In some classes I don‟t feel
Some Students
comfortable participating. […] Some
Dominate Teacher-
classes here I feel are kind of led by one
Student Direct
student. And every question is asked or
Communication
every comment is made, certain students feel the need to have their voices heard every time. It is not that someone less forward can‟t get a word, it is that you don‟t want to get a word.”
230 Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
After-class
T6 (3)
7
Answer
“I am able to talk to [name of the
Opportunities for
instructor] outside of the class very
FtF Interaction
easily, and any other classmates.”
Table 33 Students Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning within the Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group Five Views of Interaction and Communication, and Their Relationship to Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF Class is
F7 (5)
8
“I interact much more on traditional class than in online environments.”
More Interactive Online Does Not
Answer
F6 (5)
8
“So you cannot really have a discussion
Support
and I think that is what is missing: a way
Discussion
to have a discussion. To ask a question and get an answer.”
In terms of interaction and communication, and their relationship to learning within group three, the research revealed that the majority of the students considered that
231 the classes did not support student-student interaction, and that it was affirmed that opportunities
for
instructor-student
or
student-student
after-class
face-to-face
communication were available if necessary. In terms of interaction and communication, and their relationship to learning within group five, the research revealed that the students considered that FtF classes support better communication, are more interactive and social, and support both instructor-student and student-student interaction. Regarding the online classes, some affirmed it was interactive enough and that it already supported oral communication; other said it was not social, lacked human interactions and relations, supported mainly asynchronous communication and did not provide turn taking clues. 4.5.5. Pedagogical Design. This sub-section explores perceptions and preferences regarding classroom pedagogical design within groups one/four, two and three. Tables 34, 35 and 36 highlight small portions of some of the main answers given by the students.
Table 34 Students Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Pedagogical Design within Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classrooms or Combined Groups One and Four Pedagogical Design Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF Class, One-way S1 (1&4)
4
Answer
“In the live class was a good one,
Delivery with
the material was presented through
Slides
the slides.”
232 Pedagogical Design Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Online Class,
S5 (1&4)
4
Answer
“In the online we have access to the instructor notes.”
Downloadable and Printable FtF and Online
S5 (1&4)
4
“Both are organized in the same way.”
Classes, One-way Delivery, Same Organization
Table 35 Students Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Pedagogical Design within Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop or Group Two Pedagogical Design Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF Class, Four
T4 (2)
4
Answer
“It is definitely like a lecture with
Cycles, Lecture
examples, um concrete examples. And
Part
you can use what you learned to go out and explore. I can certainly apply the principles that we were lectured on.”
233 Pedagogical Design Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF Class, Four
T3 (2)
8
Answer
“[W]ithout technology he can‟t
Cycles, Instructor
possibly convey this information,
Technology
„cause he is writing all out, totally
Support
dependent on the rate that you can write. But I mean, you also think more about it. You learn more out of it […].”
In terms of perceptions and preferences regarding pedagogical design within groups one/four, the research revealed that the students saw the structure of the traditional FtF and online classes as the same, with oral delivery with content, combined with slides and/or white board/yellow pad notes and sketches, either visible FtF or through the computer. A preference was observed regarding the slides instead of handwriting and manual sketches. According to students the slides are clearer, easier to read and more appealing. In response to the pedagogical design, most students simply listened to the lecture. In terms of perceptions and preferences regarding pedagogical design within group two, the research revealed that students saw the structure of the class as composed of mainly: lecture, task, presentation and evaluation. In their view, the lecture part
234 consisted of giving information orally and visually, through speech, handwriting and sketches. Some students liked that the instructor was writing the main things down, slowing down the pacing of the lecture, so that they had time to write as well. They also valued that the instructor gave abundant amount of examples. The activity or interactive project part was appreciated by most of the students, who affirmed: “It is very nice to be able to do something yourself. There is no better way to learn it”; “I liked it a lot. It is kind of what I was saying: actually to be able to do the things he is talking about, so you actually can see it yourself”; and “And you can use what you learned to go out and explore.” The students considered that: the structure of the class was the same every day; each class had always a big theme; the time of the class was too short for all that happened; the lecture was short and general, in opposition to in-depth; there was not enough time for group work, practice and feedback; the class size was too large, allowing little direct contact with the instructor; the group sizes were too big and, therefore, difficult to manage; and that the goals of some group activities were not clear. Usually, laptop computer technology and Internet were only used by the students during the online class. In terms of perceptions and preferences regarding pedagogical design within group three, the research revealed that students saw the structure of the class as composed of mainly: lecture, little conversation, homework explanation, and feedback on previous homework. The students considered that: the structure of the class was the same every day; each class had always a big theme. In their view, the lecture was too fast and too long and tiring. Additionally, there was no time for depth. They wished to have had: real cases, more tangible examples, application of the concepts presented, links between
235 theory and practice, and opportunities for make-to-know. Moreover, students expressed the desire to have individual office time with the instructor for asking questions. Students with English as their second language indicated that a glossary of terms might have been useful. Some students valued the opportunity to be able to download the class slides to either print or visualize them on a laptop or tablet computer during and after the class.
Table 36 Students Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Pedagogical Design within Design Lecture Graduate Classroom or Group Three Pedagogical Design Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF, Three
T8 (3)
5
Cycles, Too Fast
Answer
“He presents too fast. It is volatile. I miss more tangible examples.
Lecture FtF, Three
T7 (3)
5
“Three hours. It is hard to stay
Cycles, Too
concentrated for that length of time
Long Lecture
[…].”
FtF, Three Cycles, Wishing More Two-way Narrative
T10 (3)
9
“I would add personal opinion and more discussion time […].”
236 Pedagogical Design Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF, Three
T9 (3)
7
Answer
“There is very little interaction with
Cycles, No
classmates in class. Not direct
Student-student
interaction, just sitting looking
Interaction
forward with someone behind me talking.”
4.5.6. Space and Learning. This sub-section explores perceptions and preferences regarding spaces for learning within group five. Table 37 highlights a small portion of some of the main answers given by these students, and figures 59, 60 and 61 illustrate their descriptions of best space for learning. In terms of perceptions and preferences regarding spaces for learning within group five, the research revealed that students prefer learning spaces with a modern style, and an open and casual atmosphere. They expressed preference for quiet spaces, maybe with soft music on the background and with high-tech and Internet connection. Additionally, several students wished for a connection with the outdoors. Regarding layout, a small staged lecture classroom, with an area for group discussion and a few private student areas would fit their combined description of ideal place.
237 Table 37 Students Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Spaces for Learning within the Field Research Interview with Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments, or Group Five Space and Learning Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group Number
Quiet
F1 (5)
4
“I like it to be quiet […].”
Connected to the
F1 (5)
4
“I definitively cannot do without Internet
Internet
connection during any kind of learning […].”
Furnished for
F2 (5)
4
around.”
Group Discussion In Nature
“Round/square table in center with students
F9 (5)
4
“I love the outdoors.”
STUDENTS F1-F4 SPATIAL PREFERENCES
Figure 59. Visual Representation of Students F1-F4 Spatial Preferences
238
STUDENTS F5-F8 SPATIAL PREFERENCES
Figure 60. Visual Representation of Students F5-F8 Spatial Preferences
STUDENTS F9-F11 SPATIAL PREFERENCES
Figure 61. Visual Representation of Students F9-F11 Spatial Preferences
4.5.7. Traditional Versus Online Classrooms. This sub-section explores the opposition between traditional and online classrooms within groups one/four, and five.
239 Tables 38 and 39 highlight small portions of some of the main answers given by the students. In terms of traditional and online classroom perceptions and preferences within groups one/four, the research revealed that the students think the distinction between their traditional and online classes is very fuzzy. Most of the students affirmed that there is not much difference, since the instructor teaches the same class in front of a video camera, and one part of the students watches it FtF and another watches it through the computer. As S5 affirmed: “In both cases we simply listen to the classes. There is not much difference.” S2, however, consider that the way of learning is different in these two environments: in the traditional class, he asks questions to the instructor when he has doubts, while in the online class he has to figure things out by himself. In his words: “the output is the same, learning is the same, but the method is different.” In addition, the majority considered the FtF classroom better, or easier to learn, concentrate and feel committed to. But the same amount of students considered the online classes more flexible in terms of time and location. One of the major advantages of the online classes, as repeated by most of the students, is that they allow the students to review the content as many times as they wish and to control the presentation, using the play, pause, rewind and fastforward buttons. One of the major criticisms to the online class is that it is buggy, so that the control functions do not work well as they should. Student S4 affirmed that he learns more online, but also said that online classes are not suitable for every subject. In terms of traditional and online classroom perceptions and preferences within group five, the research revealed that most of the students think the online classes are not as rewarding as FtF classes. They affirmed that the online classes are flat, static and
240 Table 38 Students Views of Traditional and Online Classrooms within the Computer Science Traditional Graduate Classroom Traditional Versus Online Classrooms Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
(Traditional vs.
S6 (1&4)
4
“They both have cons and pros. Live
Online, Both Pros
class we can get interaction […].But the
and Cons
online class is better when we don‟t understand the live class. We can get to re-play back.”
Traditional vs.
S2 (1&4)
8
“For me, um when I take a class online
Online, Different
and when I take a class in the live
ways of learning
session, I try to make the experience the same because um at the end I have to learn. […] In the Internet case, I try to figure out things by myself, and in the other case I ask the professor. [Do you feel you learn in the same way?] No.
boring, and that it contains a rigid structure, not allowing flexibility to students regarding learning path. Students F2, F3, F4 and F11 consider the FtF classes better. Student F6, however, who took the same type of online class as students S1 to S8, considered that the
241 Table 39 Students Views of Traditional and Online Classrooms within Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group Five Traditional Versus Online Classrooms Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
FtF Class is Better
F11 (5)
5
Answer
“I don't really like online courses. I like to have direct interaction with people.”
Online is More
F1 (5)
5
Time Flexible
“I really liked the convenience of a course that is not on a certain place or time because on a number of occasions I find my schedule way too busy […].”
Online Allows
F8 (5)
6
Reviewability
“If professor was too fast or too slow, could move ahead or back as I wish, until I really got it. In class I don‟t to like to ask the professor if I miss something because it interrupts the flow of the class.”
Online Has Less Commitment
F4 (5)
5
“And personally for myself I won‟t keep the commitment [on the online course]. And it doesn‟t matter how much I am paying for it.”
242 distinction between the traditional and online classes is fuzzy. Three of the students said that the online classes are more time flexible and two said they are more time efficient. Student S8 likes the reviewability functionality and S5, the self-pacing aspect. According to student F9: “if want to have more complex learning environment, where you are learning on different levels, then I am not sure that online will really work. Not the kind I had.” 4.5.8. Special Instructors. This sub-section explores students‟ perceptions and descriptions of inspiring instructors within groups two, three and five. Tables 40, 41 and 42 highlight small portions of some of the main answers given by the students. In terms of perceptions and descriptions of inspiring instructors within group two, the research revealed that students described their instructor as a fun, engaging speaker, who looks straight to students while talking, making specific comments on what each one is talking about. They also emphasized that he makes sure all the students are on the right track during group activity, stimulating thought and exploration in other directions.
Table 40 Students Views of Traditional and Online Classrooms within Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop or Group Two Special Instructors Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group Number
Speaker Style
T4 (2)
3
“He is an excellent speaker. I really enjoyed, I really felt class-like in a way. Even though the theories he talked about were very
243 Special Instructors Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group Number
Speaker Style
T4 (2)
3
complex, he made it fun and engaging.”
Attitude
T3 (2)
7
“Walks around and makes sure everybody is
Concerned with
on track. And not necessarily change the track
Learning
that we are on, but I mean make us think a little bit more about it. I appreciate it.”
Table 41 Students Views of Special Instructors within the Design Lecture Graduate Classroom or Group Three Special Instructors Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Engaging
T6 (3)
9
Personality
Answer
“[What kind of personality do you find engaging?] Um, more of a story teller. Most lectures have certain high points, with examples and this sort of things. Other parts can be monotone. Sometimes activities are valuable. Sometimes the instructor is just doing to have a change.”
244 Special Instructors Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Answer
“[What makes a great teacher?] I had a great teacher. She was someone who would put on a costume and come to class. A costume related to the topic she was teaching. So cool.”
Table 42 Students Views of Special Instructors within the Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group Five Special Instructors Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Friendly Attitude
F8 (5)
3
Answer
“Dr. B. Classes were pretty good because he never spoke with you as a professor, but as a friend.”
Passionate About Knowledge
F7 (5)
3
“My favorite of all times had a real passion for teaching subject matter, but also had some other interests in teaching outside it. That excitement got me more motivated to looking
245 Special Instructors Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Passionate About
F7 (5)
3
into new things, new ideas and so on.”
Knowledge Critical Minded
Answer
F4 (5)
3
“You cannot say something to him without justifying or saying how you arrived at that point. Making you really think through.”
Demanding
F11 (5)
3
“She keeps me doing more than I think I can do.”
In terms of perceptions of inspiring instructors within group two, the research revealed that students described their instructor as an engaging speaker. Their favorite teachers of all times were storytellers, for instance, one who would wear a costume while teaching a class in order to illustrate a point. They favored those very experienced teachers who adopted a mentor approach and allowed exploration without interfering unnecessarily. In terms of perceptions of inspiring instructors within group five, it was found that students described their best instructor as someone knowledgeable, but not arrogant or showy, and with an approachable language. Other characteristics mentioned were: friendly, motivational, confident, charismatic, open-minded and demanding. The students
246 declared a preference for instructors who adopt an experiential or hands-on approach, allowing time for peer-to-peer interaction. 4.5.9. Perceptions of the Future of Learning. This sub-section explores perceptions on the future of learning within groups one/four, two, three and five. Tables 43, 44, 45 and 46 highlight small portions of some of the main answers given by the students. In terms of perceptions of the future of learning within groups one/four, the research revealed that students believe that, in the future, online learning environments will be more interactive, allowing mutual visibility of interactants and global access. In terms of perceptions of the future of learning within group two, the research revealed that students believe that both FtF, hybrid and online classrooms will become more interactive in the future. One of the students foresaw a reorganization of the educational system. Others believe that a more personalized type of education will be
Table 43 Students Perceptions of the Future of Learning within the Computer Science Traditional and Online Graduate Classroom or Combined Groups One and Four Perceptions of the Future of Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
In the Future,
S2 (1&4)
10
Answer
“I think online classes are going to be
Online
more interactive. People will be
Environments More
having a video conference. The
Interactive
student is not in the live class. Instead he is participating in the online class
247 Perceptions of the Future of Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
Answer
while the teacher is teaching. And the teacher can see all the students […] There will be higher level of interaction […] they will be able to do group discussions.”
Table 44 Students Perceptions of the Future of Learning within the Design Hands-On Graduate Workshop or Group Two Perceptions of the Future of Learning Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group Number
In the Future, More
T2 (2)
10
“I think there needs to be a
Experiential Live, FtF
more […] experiential
Learning
learning. I kind of believe life is all about experiences. […] And sitting in a classroom, you don‟t get a lot of experience.”
In the Future, More Contextual Live, FtF Learning
T2 (2)
10
“So, if we were learning about […] rising seasons, and then
248 Perceptions of the Future of Learning Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group Number
In the Future, More Contextual
T2 (2)
10
you go to a place that is being affected, […] that is ultimately
Live, FtF Learning
like: enriching.” In the Future, Interactive
T1 (2)
10
“Get feedback from not only
Hybrid Environments –
the students […] but out of the
Classrooms as a Gateway to
world. Then we could make
World
our judgment not biased [and get] insights as well.”
Table 45 Students Perceptions of the Future of Learning within the Design Lecture Graduate Classroom or Group Three Perceptions of the Future of Learning Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
In the Future,
T9 (3)
10
Answer
“There will be less and less
Education will Bring
classrooms. The future will blend
More the Outside of
together in and out of the class.”
the Classroom Inside Perceptions of the Future of Learning
249 Analysis
Student
Question
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
In the Future,
T7 (3)
10
Answer
“In the future, students could be
Anytime, Anywhere
typing or doing something with video
Connection to Live,
and audio, connected with the
FtF Classroom
classroom. They could interact through video or text like chat, sending documents. There will be access at any time of the day – scheduling will not matter, and you can take wherever you are.
In the Future, Hybrid T7 (3) Spaces
10
There will be more mobility - in car or airplane. But it will be for College age and up. […] It needs to be a combination of on-site and remote.”
available, or that more connections between theory and practice will exist. FtF classrooms will be more experiential and contextual,
adopting the
apprenticeship
approach. Hybrid classrooms will be like gateways to world interaction, linking students to others with similar interests and building a community around mentorship and knowledge sharing. Table 46
250 Students Perceptions of the Future of Learning within the Field Research Graduate Students from Different Academic Departments or Group Five Perceptions of the Future of Learning Analysis
Student
Sub-category
Id/Group Number
In the Future, Hybrid F7 (5)
Question Answer
10
“I think that there will be a mix of
Classroom with
classroom with a sort of electronic
More Personalized
interface customized to specific types of
Learning
learning or learning events.”
In the Future, Online
F3 (5)
10
“[…] In the future there will be in online
Environments With
learning more ways that we can see each
Mutual Visibility
other and know who is talking and what each person is doing.”
In the Future, Online
F6 (5)
10
“If online education is going to excel it
Education will Excel
needs to create a new structure. It needs to
If Taking
take advantage of the interactive nature. It
Advantages of Web
has to take advantage of the non-linearity.
Qualities
I can imagine work being transferred to a computer network in the US office to the India office and they work on it and send back. It is the idea of building on other
251 Perceptions of the Future of Learning Analysis
Student
Question Answer
Sub-category
Id/Group
Number
In the Future, Online
F6 (5)
10
work. Taking advantage that not
Education will Excel
everyone is at the same place and at the
If Taking
same time. The other opportunities are
Advantages of Web
for the edition of support materials that
Qualities
are interactive. That is probably the good side.”
In terms of perceptions of the future of learning within group three, the research revealed that students believe that more online learning environments will be available, and accessible from any place, like from a car or airplane. With improved technology, these environments will allow interactants to see each other and be able to use multiple languages. The live, FtF classrooms will support small group interaction and provide opportunities for continuous feedback on performance. The apprenticeship model, again, appeared as the main preference. In terms of perceptions of the future of learning within group five, the research revealed that students believe the live, FtF classroom with teachers will always remain, and be better than the online version. Hybrid environments will combine the benefits of FtF and online classrooms and combine personalized learning with the affordances of the World Wide Web. Technological advancements will allow interactants to manage turn
252 taking during conversation, see each other, and feel contact in online environments. According to F4: “I think you are going to have a lot more opportunities for synchronous communication with improved technology and a lot more bandwidth more user friendly interfaces and devices. Wireless technologies that you can be anywhere.”
253 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH CROSS ANALYSIS
This chapter synthesizes some of the many dimensions of the findings, including: available technology, pedagogical and spatial design, affordances and implications for learning. It presents the summary cross-analysis and synthesis of all the data collected during the different studies - main and complementary video-ethnography, interview data, the archival material of online courses, and the observations and pictures of learning spaces within the target university. The goal is to present the summary analysis and synthesis of the main findings across the different research groups and protocols. First, the cross-analysis of the data of the different student groups is presented in relation to a single analysis framework unit, that is: use of time, cycles of learning and pedagogical design; use of space and higher level actions; use of media, modes and technology; multimodality and learning needs and abilities within the cycles of learning; and purposes, desires and perceptions of learning and learning environments. Next, all the data is examined together. For this purpose, the section was further divided into six parts: 5.1) Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design within Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms; 5.2) Use of Space and Higher Level Actions within Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms; 5.3) Available Media, Modes and Technology, and their Use within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Traditional and Online Classrooms 5.4) Multimodality and Learning Needs and Abilities within Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms; 5.5) Purposes, Desires and Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms; and 5.6)
254 Cross-Analysis and Synthesis of the Research Data and Implications for the Design of TELE. The exploration of each of the above aspects of the classroom interaction for the design of Technology Enhanced Learning Environments, as it is demonstrated in this chapter, provided rich insights to this research regarding the interaction dynamics within classrooms with different ranges of use of technology. These insights, as it will be demonstrated in the following chapter, can be linked to design criteria and inform the design of TELE. The link of the analysis of use of time, cycles of learning, pedagogical design, use of space, higher/intermediate/lower level actions, use of media, use of modes and technology, multimodality, learning needs and abilities within the cycles of learning, and purposes, desires and perceptions of learning and learning environments will become more evident with the presentation of the overall methodological framework on chapter six.
5.1.
Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design within Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms
This sub-section explores the use of time, cycles of learning and pedagogical design within groups one, two, three, and four. It also discusses the usefulness in exploring these aspects of the classroom interaction for the design of Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Figure 62 presents the summary of use of time and cycles of learning within groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 classes. Looking across all the data referring to use of time, cycles of learning and pedagogical design within these different learning environments, some patterns were found. For instance, within the 26 different learning spaces that were observed, both
255 graduate Computer Science and Design, and both traditional and online, the research revealed an average of 85% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information, 7% of the time was dedicated to two way-narrative construction, 8% of the time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance, and 2% of the time was dedicated to feedback on performance. In this way, in all observed learning spaces, an imbalance was found in relation to the use of the four different learning cycles, always with predominance of one-way delivery of information. The option for emphasizing oneway delivery of information, as repeatedly mentioned in the previous chapter, places the learner in the passive role, and reveals a static view of learning. The more the predominance of one-way delivery was observed, the more the class was found passive from the student‟s point of view. The presence of opportunities for the students to work together and construct meaning iteratively, even in a really small proportion, was sufficient to make classes more active and alive. The presence of opportunities to do something in practice and to hear feedback from the instructor seemed to have created new opportunities for students to understand their progress and correct misconceptions. Through the presence of opportunities for two-way narrative guidance, the more oral students were able to construct meaning through questions and answers, and the less oral ones were able to hear and learn from the teacher-student interaction. It was found overall that instructors tended to select a group of teaching strategies and apply them to an entire course, and not simply to one class. In the case of the instructors who taught more than one course, it was observed that they even applied those strategies across courses within a domain. Because the class syllabi were not a target in this research, the learning goals identified by the instructors were not checked here
256 against the selected teaching strategies. It was also beyond the scope of this research to check the ultimate learning goals of graduate education, but only to observe learning in rich multimodal expression within graduate classrooms with different ranges of use of technology, to understand some the aspects of the context and of the interaction that support or inhibit it of occurring, and to translate this understanding in ways that are useful for designing TELE. Within the Computer Science traditional classrooms, instructors sometimes taught relatively small size classes with 10-12 students, and sometimes taught relatively medium size classes with 25-30 students. In all instances, they did not make use of teaching strategies within the classroom that allow students to practice theory and construct narratives iteratively during the class. That indicates that size of the class is not always a driving force for choice of teaching strategy. Opportunities for hands-on practice related to the traditional classroom were only present in the form of homework. However, homework assignments were often individual and not for groups of students. All together, in this way, the rich opportunities for graduate Computer Science students to construct meaning iteratively, link theory and practice and understand their progress seem to have been removed from the classroom and formal assignments. Within the Design traditional classrooms, instructors sometimes taught relatively small size classes with 18-20 students, and sometimes taught relatively large size classes with 50 or more students. In the small classroom instance, the instructor did not make use of teaching strategies within the classroom that allow students to practice theory and construct narrative iteratively during the class. In contrast, in the large classroom instances, the largest of all observed classrooms – that is, both Design and Computer
257 Science and both traditional and online – the instructor was the one who made more use of the different learning cycles - including hands-on practice and performance, two-way narrative construction and feedback on performance, in addition to one-way delivery of information. That again indicates within a domain that size of the class is not always a driving force for choice of teaching strategy. Bringing the Computer Science and Design classes together, a suggestion was found that, even across domains, the number of students in a class may not always be a driving force for choice of teaching strategy, or a good justification for such choice. The amount and nature of the content that the instructor has to cover during a course could appear to be a better explanation for these choices, but, close examination revealed that, in fact, this is quite a fuzzy area. For instance, group three instructor covered mainly broad concepts, one per class, presented theory and formulas, and described practices. In the group two classroom, the instructor also covered broad concepts, while giving enough time for the students to experiment with these concepts. Surprisingly, the amount of content was even bigger than in group three. He also presented theory and formulas, as well as described practices and provided examples. Contrasting traditional and online Computer Science graduate classrooms, the research revealed an average of 93% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information in traditional classrooms, in contrast to 100% in online classrooms; 7% of the time was dedicated to two way-narrative guidance in traditional classrooms, in contrast to 0% in online classrooms; no time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance in traditional classrooms, as well as in online classrooms; and no time was dedicated to feedback on performance in traditional classrooms, as well as in online classrooms. The
258 option for emphasizing one-way delivery of information even more in online classrooms, places the learner even further in a passive role. In this way, the experience of the traditional classroom student was slightly superior to the experience of the online student in terms of time dedicated to two-way narrative guidance, which supports construction of meaning. The view of learning of the traditional Computer Science graduate classroom, therefore, is one where the learner plays a slightly more active role in the construction of meaning than in the online environment. But in both cases, the interactions took place between instructor and students, and not students and students, which indicates a view of learning where student-student interaction does not play a role in the construction of meaning. Contrasting graduate Computer Science and Design traditional classrooms, an average of 93% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information in Computer Science classrooms, in contrast to 73% in Design classrooms; 7% of the time was dedicated to two way-narrative guidance (not including two-way narrative construction) in Computer Science classrooms, in contrast to 10% in Design classrooms (including two-way narrative construction); no time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance in Computer Science classrooms, in contrast to 10% in Design classrooms; and no time was dedicated to feedback on performance in Computer Science classrooms, in contrast to 7% in Design classrooms. In this way, the experience of the Design traditional classroom student was superior to the experience of the Computer Science student in terms of time dedicated to two way-narrative guidance and construction, hands-on practice and performance, and feedback on performance, which support iterative construction of meaning, linking theory and practice, and understanding
259
CROSS ANALYSIS STATISTICS GROUP 1 AVERAGE
GROUP 2 AVERAGE
Average class time
1:52
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
1:45 0:07 0:00 0:00
93% 7% 0% 0%
Nr of students Nr seats
23 138
Average class time
3:45
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
2:25 0:23 0:44 0:13
64% 10% 20% 6%
Nr of students Nr seats
GROUP 3 AVERAGE
GROUP 4 AVERAGE
Average class time
2:26
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
2:24 0:10 0:00 0:00
93% 7% 0% 0%
Nr of students Nr seats
48 56
18 51
Average class time
1:18
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
1:18 0:00 0:00 0:00
100% 0% 0% 0%
Nr of students Nr seats
1 N/A
TOTAL AVERAGE Average class time
2:20
100%
One-way delivery of information Two-way narrative construction Hands-on practice Feedback on performance
1:56 0:10 0:11 0:03
85% 7% 8% 2%
Figure 62. Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time and Learning Cycles
progress towards learning goals. In contrast to the Design classroom, the view of learning of the traditional Computer Science graduate classroom, therefore, is one where the learner plays a fairly passive role in the construction of meaning. And the view of learning of the traditional Design graduate classroom, in contrast with the Computer Science classroom, therefore, is one where the learner plays a more active role in the
260 construction of meaning, where student-student interaction is relevant and where practice and feedback on performance support this process. In summary, learning spaces, either traditional or online, with emphasis on oneway delivery of information, especially the ones with the absence of all other learning cycles, tended to be more passive from the students point-of view, limiting their opportunities to construct meaning iteratively, link theory and practice and understand their progress. The presence, even in very small proportion of two-way narrative construction, especially when coupled with hands-on activity, had tremendous power in making the classroom more active and alive. The combination of hands-on practice, twoway narrative construction and feedback on performance, even if all together they were given less time than one-way narrative construction, brought valuable opportunities for the students to construct meaning iteratively, link theory and practice and understand their progress. The classrooms that supported diverse cycles of learning revealed a view of learning where the learners play an active role in the construction of meaning, and that social interaction with peers is supportive of this process, together with opportunities to link theory and practice, and to get feedback on one‟s progress towards defined learning goals. It is important to keep in mind that “learning is a remarkably social process. In truth, it occurs not as a response to teaching, but rather as a social framework that fosters learning” (Brown, 2001, p. 65). For this reason, it is considered necessary to create opportunities in the classroom for students to engage in meaningful interaction and construction of meaning, not only with instructors, but also with their peers. 5.1.1. Use of Space and Higher Level Actions within Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms. This sub-section explores the use of space and
261 higher/intermediate/lower level actions within groups one, two, three, and four. Figures 63 and 64 present the use of space within groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 classes, contrasting the use made by instructor and students. Looking across the data from these groups, a number of patterns were found in terms of similarities and differences in relation to proxemics, higher/intermediate/lower level actions, observed use of space, impact of the space on learning, and underlying educational view. Overall, it was found that in terms of teacher-student proxemics or distance between teacher and students as they interact, the first and third groups of spaces did not vary much, supporting social to public distance between teacher and students – usually implying a lack of opportunities for personal interactions. The exception to the rule amongst the four groups was a result not of the characteristics of the space, but of the pedagogical activities proposed by the instructor of group two, which created opportunities for students to interact with personal distance to the instructor during group work and student presentation. The same classroom was utilized in a very different way by group three instructor, resulting in lack of opportunities for personal interactions with the instructor. Group four, taking online classes, can be said to have supported virtual distance between teacher and students. Regarding the student-student proxemics or distance among students, the research revealed that, in relation to the first and third groups, it varied from intimate to public, but usually without facial contact - implying an inadequacy of support to FtF communication among students. Despite groups two and three being situated in the same “l” shaped classroom, only group two provided partial support to FtF communication amongst students, with facial contact of each student with half of the other students in the class during lecture time. Group three instructor asked all
262 the students to sit on one side of the classroom, impeding them to have facial contact with one another. During group activity time, group two students had the opportunity to interact with intimate distance and FtF contact with the other students. Among the main higher/intermediate/lower level actions found across these students within all the four groups are: listening to the instructor‟s lecture and taking notes. Group two was the one with more additional higher/intermediate/lower level actions, including: prototyping, discussing the prototype with group, performing or watching one‟s group work being presented, and listening to the instructor‟s feedback on group work. Group four, sitting in front of a computer instead of an instructor, presented the following additional higher and intermediate level actions for all students: clicking the mouse, typing on the keyboard, and looking at the computer screen. A small part of the students across groups 1, 2 and 3 also clicked the mouse, typed on the keyboard, and looked at their laptop screen. Overall, the predominance of unidirectional communication and lack of opportunities for collaboration was observed, except in the case of group two. In regard to the educational view revealed by the traditional and online classrooms – groups 1 to 4 – the students were usually placed in the passive role of intake of information, with exception of group two, were opportunities for active construction of meaning were present. In relation to use of space, groups 1, 3 and 4 exhibited, overall, a contrast in terms of the possibilities for actions of instructors and students, where students were usually confined to one sitting area and the instructor had opportunities to move fluidly within the large stage area. That demonstrates the inequality of the teacher-
263 CROSS ANALYSIS SUMMARY GROUP 1 SUMMARY
TEACHER-STUDENT PROXEMICS
Social to public distance.
STUDENT-STUDENT PROXEMICS
Intimate to public distance (without facial contact)
MAIN HIGHER OR INTERMEDIATE LEVEL ACTIONS
Listening to the instructor‟s lecture and taking notes.
COMMUNICATION/ COLLABORATION
Unidirectional communication, inadequacy of support to face-to-face interaction among students, lack of opportunities for collaboration amongst students Contrast in terms of the possibilities for actions of instructors and students, where students were usually confined to one sitting area and the instructor had opportunities to move fluidly within the large stage area. Students placed in the passive role of intake of information.
USE OF SPACE
EDUCATIONAL VIEW OF THE SPACE
GROUP 2 SUMMARY
TEACHER-STUDENT PROXEMICS
Intimate to public distance.
STUDENT-STUDENT PROXEMICS
Intimate to public distance (with facial contact)
MAIN HIGHER OR INTERMEDIATE LEVEL ACTIONS
Listening to the instructor‟s lecture and taking notes, prototyping, discussing the prototype with group, performing or watching one‟s group work being presented, and listening to the instructor‟s feedback on group work Opportunities for active construction of meaning, support to face-to-face interaction and opportunities for collaboration amongst students. Balance in terms the possibilities for actions of instructors and students, where students had opportunities to move fluidly within the space. Students placed in the passive role of intake of information.
COMMUNICATION/ COLLABORATION USE OF SPACE
EDUCATIONAL VIEW OF THE SPACE
Figure 63. Student and Instructor Use of Space and Higher, Intermediate and Lower Level Actions Within Groups 1 and 2 Traditional and Online Classrooms
264 CROSS ANALYSIS SUMMARY GROUP 3 SUMMARY TEACHER-STUDENT PROXEMICS
Social to public distance.
STUDENT-STUDENT PROXEMICS
Intimate to public distance (without facial contact)
MAIN HIGHER OR INTERMEDIATE LEVEL ACTIONS
Listening to the instructor‟s lecture and taking notes.
COMMUNICATION/ COLLABORATION
Unidirectional communication, inadequacy of support to face-to-face interaction among students, lack of opportunities for collaboration amongst students Contrast in terms of the possibilities for actions of instructors and students, where students were usually confined to one sitting area and the instructor had opportunities to move fluidly within the large stage area. Students placed in the passive role of intake of information.
USE OF SPACE
EDUCATIONAL VIEW OF THE SPACE
GROUP 4 SUMMARY TEACHER-STUDENT PROXEMICS
Virtual distance
STUDENT-STUDENT PROXEMICS
No interaction to Virtual distance
MAIN HIGHER OR INTERMEDIATE LEVEL ACTIONS
Listening to the instructor‟s lecture and taking notes, clicking the mouse, typing on the keyboard, and looking at the computer screen. Unidirectional communication, inadequacy of support to face-to-face interaction among students, lack of opportunities for collaboration amongst students Contrast in terms of the possibilities for actions of instructors and students, where students were usually confined to one sitting area and the instructor had opportunities to move fluidly within the large stage area. Students placed in the passive role of intake of information.
COMMUNICATION/ COLLABORATION
USE OF SPACE
EDUCATIONAL VIEW OF THE SPACE
Figure 64. Student and Instructor Use of Space and Higher and Intermediate Level Actions Within Groups 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms
student relationship and, in relation to the student spatial constraint, limits opportunities for action amongst the students. Group two students, in contrast, had opportunities to
265 move fluidly that are parallel to those of the instructor, indicating equality of the teacherstudent relationship. The main opportunities for action, missed by groups 1, 3 and 4, were: asking and answering questions; having group discussion; doing practical activity; presenting work; and getting immediate feedback on performance. Group two was an exception in all categories of analysis and the main revelation amongst the four groups. Through pedagogical design, group two instructor was able to overcome the limitations imposed by the space and its configuration, transforming a classroom that originally revealed an educational view where the students are passive recipients of information into a classroom with rich opportunities for communication and collaboration. The consequence of this revelation is that pedagogical design can have a greater effect on educational view and learning opportunities than space, and that through pedagogical design it is possible to transform a passive classroom into one where the students actively construct meaning. 5.1.3. Available Media, Modes and Technology, and Their Use within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Traditional and Online Classrooms. This sub-section examines media, modes and technology, and their use within groups one, two, three, four, and six. Tables 47and 48 present the cross analysis of the data, referring to instructors and students use of media, modes and technology. Looking across the data from groups one, two, three, four, and six, a number of patterns were found in terms of similarities and differences in availability and use of media and technology, and modes of representation, contrasting the ones used by instructor and the students. Overall, it was found that in terms of media and technology, and modes of representation, and their combined affordances, groups one, three and four
266 did not vary much. In these three groups, instructors had far greater opportunities to use different modes, media and technology than their students, either traditional or online. Such imbalance directly affects communication, where students are always disadvantaged in terms of opportunities to learn and make meaning. This further supports earlier findings regarding the predominance of imbalanced communication and lack of opportunities for collaboration. The main media, technology and modes of representation used by groups one and four‟s instructors were microphones and speakers to represent speech and amplify its capacity to be heard by all the students – traditional or online; laptop computer, Power Point slides and multimedia projector or TV monitors to display still image, graphs and written text;
video camera to represent image, speech and
movement and stream these to online students, while lecturing in the front central part of the classroom, so that facial movements and gestures were visible to all the students. The main media, technology and modes of representation used by group three‟s instructor were a laptop computer, Power Point slides and a multimedia projector to display still image, graphs and written text to students. He did not use a microphone to represent speech and amplify its capacity – he simply spoke loud, and his classes were not recorded by video and streamed to students outside the class. Group one students mainly used no media, and technology. Group three students mainly used a laptop computer during the class to view images and text or to represent text – not always class related. And group four students mainly used a computer and earphones to view and listen to the instructor‟s image, speech and movement. In terms of media and technology, and modes of representation, and their combined affordances, group six was mainly like group four, with exception of two instructors, Manufacturing Technology and Health Physics, who
267 created richer opportunities for the students to learn and make meaning in the online environment, leading to balanced communication and collaboration. The main media, technology and modes of representation used by these two particular instructors within group six were mainly the same as the ones used by group four instructors, including microphones and speakers to represent speech and amplify its capacity to be heard by all the students – traditional or online; laptop computer, Power Point slides and multimedia projector or TV monitors to display still image, graphs and written text; video camera and video conferencing system to represent image, speech and movement and stream these to online students; and teaching at the head of a large oval table at the central part of the classroom, so that facial movements and gestures were visible to all the students. The students from these two courses within group six mainly used the same media, and technology that the instructors did. In terms of media and technology, and modes of representation, and their combined affordances, group two was the major exception. The main media, technology and modes of representation used by this instructor were a video camera to capture written text and sketches and display them through a multimedia projector on a large screen in order to represent these modes of representation in large scale; and a laptop computer, web pages and the multimedia projector to display and present text, still image, movement and sound. He did not use a microphone to represent speech and amplify its capacity – he simply spoke loud. The main media, technology and modes of representation used by group two students were laptop computers during the lecture and activity parts of the class to view images and text or to represent text – usually class related; and speaking to the class, during student group presentation, without using a
268 microphone to represent speech and amplify its capacity, but simply speaking loud to be heard by all. Such balance in regard to the variety of opportunities that both instructor and students had to use different modes, media and technology, indicated the existence of rich possibilities for communicational exchange. In relation to materials and objects, and to modes of representation, not a lot of variation was found. Groups one, four and six instructors mainly used markers or pens, and white boards or yellow legal pads to represent written text in large scale through the use of technology such as document cameras and TV monitors or multimedia projectors, so that students could see at a distance within the classroom. Group two instructor mainly used a pen and paper to represent written text and sketches in large scale so that students could see at a distance within the classroom through the video and multimedia projector technology, and he used a marker and white boards on wheels also to represent written text in large scale. And group three instructor used no materials and objects. Groups one, three, four and six students mainly used paper and pen to represent written text in the format of notes, while group two students used 3D objects or foam and glue to build a 3D prototype objects during prototyping sessions. Looking at the affordances of the technologies of dissemination and representation, contrasting the ones used by groups one, two, three, four and six instructors and the traditional and online students, similarities and differences were found. In the case of groups one, three and four, and most of group six, the instructors had far greater opportunities to use the different modes, media and technology. In contrast, in the case of group two and part of group six, the research
269 Table 47 Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Traditional and Online Instructors Use of Media, Modes and Technology INSTRUCTORS CROSS ANALYSIS SUMMARY GROUP Group 1
MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY AND SUPPORTED MODES Microphones and speakers;
Amplified speech;
Laptop computer, Power Point
Still image, graphs and written
slides and multimedia projector or TV monitors;
text; Image, speech and movement
Video camera. Group 2
Video camera and multimedia projector; Laptop computer, web pages and
Written text and sketches; Text, still image, movement and sound.
the multimedia projector; Group 3
Laptop computer, Power Point slides and a multimedia
Still image, graphs and written text.
projector; Group 4
Microphones and speakers;
Amplified speech;
Laptop computer, Power Point
Still image, graphs and written
slides and multimedia projector or TV monitors;
text; Image, speech and movement.
Video camera. Group 6
(same as group 4)
(same as group 4)
270 Table 48 Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Traditional and Online Students Use of Media, Modes and Technology STUDENTS CROSS ANALYSIS SUMMARY GROUP Group 1
MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY AND SUPPORTED MODES No media and technology.
Except for minority of students who used laptop computers (images and text).
Group 2
Laptop computers
Images and text.
Group 3
Laptop computers.
Images and text.
Group 4
Computer and earphones.
Image, speech and movement.
Group 6
Either computer and earphone or
Image, speech and movement.
microphone and video camera.
revealed that both the instructor and students had varied opportunities to use different modes, media and technology, indicating possible rich communicational exchange. In the particular case of group four students, it was found that they had several opportunities that they did not make use of, which were embedded in the online platform system, such as email and other communication tools that could have allowed them, after pausing the online presentation, to represent written text and communicate with the instructor, either to receive delayed or immediate feedback, depending on the instructor‟s online hours. In this way, in the case of groups 1, 3 and 4, a communicational imbalance was observed between instructors and students. In the case of group two, a communicational balance was observed between instructor and students, with varied opportunities for both to use
271 different modes, media and technology. In all cases, the result was partially derived from the particular selection and use of modes, media and technology, and not simply because of the opportunities that these technologies of dissemination and representation provided per se. In addition, a relationship was noticed between the use of modes, media and technology made by the students and the way the class was set up by the instructors, which implied particular opportunities for communication created by them and perceived by the students. In this way, across all students, it is considered that the pedagogical design of the class, its affordances in terms of possibilities for action, and its affordances as perceived and selected by the student, have an impact on the outcome. All together, one might think that the diversity in sensorial preferences for intake of information places insurmountable challenges on pedagogical design. But that is not actually so. In reality, the four cycles of learning offer a good strategy for providing opportunities for all, and in different levels. 5.1.4. Multimodality, Learning Needs and Abilities within Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms. This sub-section examines multimodality, learning needs and abilities within groups one, two, three, and four. Figures 65 and 66 present the summary modes of interaction within these classes. Looking across the data from these groups, a number of patterns were found in terms of similarities and differences amongst students‟ modes of interaction within the four cycles of learning. Overall, groups one, three and four did not vary much in terms of modes of interaction. Some of the main modalities that were present amongst the students of these three groups were: gaze, handwriting, doodling, in-place body movement, speech, body posture, mouse clicking, laptop keyboard typing and tablet laptop digital
272 highlighting and handwriting. The modes that were best accommodated in the observed classrooms were: gaze, handwriting, doodling, laptop keyboard typing, tablet laptop digital highlighting mouse clicking, body posture, and in-place body movement. The one that was most poorly accommodated was speech. This collection of modes of representation, especially the predominance of in-place body movement with few opportunities for speech, supports earlier findings regarding students being simply recipients of information, and shows the state of passivity or limited opportunities for action and mobility in which the students were found. That indicates lack of opportunities for action on the side of the students and further supports earlier findings regarding the predominance of imbalanced communication and lack of opportunities for collaboration. In terms of modes of interaction, group two was again the exception to the rule. Among the main modalities that were present amongst the students were: body movement (enactment, and chair swiveling), material manipulation, speech (one-to-one to one-tomany), vocal characterizer (laughing), gaze (forward at the instructor or classmates, and downward at the paper or computer screen), handwriting (from seldom to occasional), body posture (rare to frequent back changing posture), gesture, facial expression, proxemics, mouse clicking and laptop keyboard typing. All modes were well accommodated in the observed classroom. This collection of modes of representation, with varied opportunities for body movement and speech, supports earlier findings regarding this model of classroom allowing rich meaning construction. This further supports earlier findings regarding the predominance of balanced communication and rich opportunities for collaboration. Looking at learning styles – specifically the six sensorial modalities or sensorial preferences for intake of information (visual verbal,
273 visual imagistic, auditory aural, auditory oral, motor mechanic and motor kinesthetic), consistent patterns were found. Giving values 3, 2 or 1 to the all students primary to least used sensorial preferences for intake or output of information, an overall dominance of visual preference was found, 58 out of 153 – combining verbal and imagistic, which could not be distinguished clearly due to the nature of the class. These preferences were tightly followed by motor, 54 out of 153 – with dominance of fine motor or mechanic over gross motor or kinesthetic, 32 to 22. The auditory modality was least frequently found amongst students, 41out of 153, and a very high dominance of aural preference over oral preference was found, 34 to 7. The students within the four observed classroom groups, in this way, seemed to exhibit the predominance of visual and motor preferences, and a minority of auditory, especially oral, preference. Learning needs seem, partially, to have a close relationship with learning styles or preferences. It is evident, however that preferences for sensorial intake of information only translate to a small part of learning needs. The small segment of learning needs that could be extracted from the information in this sub-section is that the observed students exhibited a greater need for verbal/ imagistic and fine/gross motor output and input. Considering that the opportunities for motor engagement within groups one, three and four - except for in-place, individual body movement, such as in leg shaking and handwriting - it is clear that these students were the ones that were least accommodated by the pedagogical design of these classes. Now, considering the opportunities for motor engagement within group two, it is clear that these students were well accommodated by
274 CROSS ANALYSIS Group 1 Present Mode(s)
Poorly Supported Mode(s) Not Supported Mode(s) Learning Styles (Sensorial Modality Preferences)
Gaze (forward at the instructor, upward at the TV monitor displaying learning materials, downward at the paper, here and there, and nowhere), handwriting (from occasional to extensive and from class to non-class related), in-place body movement (restless leg movement), speech (none to frequent), body posture (rare to frequent changing back posture), mouse clicking and laptop keyboard typing. Speech.
Whole-body movement. Motor (18/45) Kinesthetic (9) Mechanic (9)
Visual (17/45) Verbal Imagistic
Auditory (10/45) Aural Oral (8) (2)
Group 2 Present Modes
Poorly Supported Modes Not Supported Modes Learning Styles
Whole-body movement (enactment, and chair swiveling), material manipulation, speech (one-to-one to one-to-may), vocal characterizer (laughing), gaze (forward at the instructor or classmates, and downward at the paper or computer screen), handwriting (from seldom to occasional), body posture (rare to frequent changing back posture), gesture, facial expression, proxemics, mouse clicking and laptop keyboard typing. None.
None. Motor (13/29) Kinesthetic Mechanic (8) (5)
Visual (8/29) Verbal Imagistic
Auditory (8/29) Aural Or (6) al (2)
Figure 65. Groups 1 and 2 Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design
275 CROSS ANALYSIS Group 3 Present Modes
Poorly Supported Modes Not Supported Modes Learning Styles
Gaze (forward at the instructor or large screen displaying slides of learning materials, or downward at the computer screen), handwriting (from occasional to extensive), doodling, body movement, speech (no to occasional), body posture, mouse clicking, laptop keyboard typing and tablet laptop digital highlighting and handwriting. Speech. Whole-body movement. Motor (8/37) Kinesthetic (1)
Present Modes
Poorly Supported Modes Not Supported Modes Learning Styles
Mechanic (7)
Visual (16/37) Verbal
Imagistic
Auditory (13/37) Aural Oral (10) (3)
Group 4 Gaze (forward at the screen, here and there, and nowhere), listening (attentive to dispersive), handwriting (from occasional to extensive), body movement (restless in-place leg movement), body posture (rare to frequent changing back posture), mouse clicking and laptop keyboard typing. Speech. Whole-body movement. Motor (15/42) Kinesthetic (7)
Mechanic (8)
Visual (17/42) Verbal
Imagistic
Auditory (10/42) Aural Oral (10) (0)
Figure 66. Groups 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms Use of Time, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Design
the pedagogical design of the class. In this way, two main approaches were found amongst groups 1, 2, 3 and 4: a) an almost exclusive emphasis on of one-way delivery of information cycle of learning, including lecture, projecting slides, and/or writing on the white boards or yellow pads; and b) a combination of one-way delivery of information, hands-on practice and performance, two-way narrative construction, and feedback on performance. The first approach seemed to best accommodate the auditory aural students, who seemed to be a minority, and the verbal visual students, secondly, since the majority of the visual information presented was in the form of text, and not images. While the
276 second approach seemed to accommodate well a variety of student profiles and learning preferences. Looking at some of the learner abilities, the adaptive behavior of a part of the learners to the class approach was still prominent. Looking together at multiple modes of representation within the four cycles of learning, learner abilities, learning styles and learning needs, consistent implications were found for pedagogical design. One of the main implications for pedagogical design in regard to modalities is the need for more balance amongst the opportunities available within the four cycles of learning. Another implication to pedagogical design in regard to modalities is the need for more opportunities for whole-body interaction and manual activities, which are not typical in classes where one-way delivery of information learning cycles predominate, but are more common in classes that include hands-on practice and performance learning cycle. Another implication is the need for smaller lectures, or smaller chunks of lectures alternated with other activities, to not strain motor students with long periods without action. Additionally, orientation for students to take more advantage of the opportunities to interact verbally seems necessary. Moreover, social, cultural and conversational strategies seem to be lacking in some students, who need to receive supervision and guidance in that regard. Overall, indications were found for the need to balance the learning opportunities more. In addition, indications were found for the need to make the classes more interactive, like it was observed with group two, in order to remove students from a passive position, to one of active engagement in meaning construction, where not a single approach, such as lecture, dominates the entire class, but, rather, a rich combination.
277 5.1.5. Purposes, Desires and Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms. This sub-section explores perceptions of learning and learning environments within groups one/four (who were the same students taking classes in two environments), two, three, and five. Figures 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 present the summary of perceptions of learning and learning environments translated into insights and needs. Looking across the data from these groups, a number of patterns were found in terms of perceptions of learning and learning environments. These major perceptions amongst the different groups, organized into categories, were, then, translated in terms of insights and needs. In terms of views of learning within these groups – the research revealed that some of the students believe that learning is a process of transformation or development, from less to more understanding of things, which in turn can be applied to real life. While other students believe that learning is an interactive, people to people process that can occur anywhere, where exchange of ideas occurs, producing a state of expanded, and often times multi-dimensional, understanding about someone, something or a process. Some of the findings derived from this category are that learning needs to be experiential, fun and related to real life, and that it should promote not only knowledge acquisition, but a change in one‟s perspective. In regard to memorable learning experiences, the research revealed that some of the students included in their description of positive memorable learning experiences:
opportunities for group discussion,
classmate feedback and tangible demonstrations. Included amongst the students‟ negative memorable learning experiences were: extreme pressure on performance, and negative personal interactions, such as public humiliation. Some of the findings derived from this
278 SUMMARY CROSS ANALYSIS FINDINGS VIEWS OF LEARNING
Groups 1&4
Group 2
Group 3
Group 5
Learning Needs to Be … Experiential Enriching Fun Developmental Conceptual Procedural Content Driven Related to Real Life Communicative Multi-dimensional Interactive Activity Related Performance Related Learning Needs to Promote …
X X X X X X X X
Change Perspective Knowledge Acquisition Cognitive Processes Self-Expansion Dissemination of Information Information Acquisition Skill Development Independence of Teacher
X X X
X
X X
X
X
X X X
X X X X X
X
X X
Figure 67. Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments Within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs
279 SUMMARY CROSS ANALYSIS FINDINGS MEMORABLE LEARNING EXPERIENCES
Group 5
Learning Needs to Support … Feedback from Classmates Group Discussion Personal Interactions Fun in Learning Learning through Practice Learning Needs to Include …
X X X X X
Tangible Demonstrations Instructor Encouragement Didactic Explanations Learning is related to ...
X X X
Topic of Interest Learning is not related to …
X
Unsound Pedagogy Mandatory courses Pressure on Performance Memorization Learning Needs to be at the Level of ….
X X X X
Students Abilities Teachers Need to be …
X
Charismatic Non-main stream in style People friendly Emotionally supportive
X X X X
Figure 68. Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs
280 SUMMARY CROSS ANALYSIS FINDINGS LEARNING
Learning Needs to Support …
PROFILE AND
Auditory Learners Visual Learners Motor Learners Inductive Learners Global Learners No Patience for Long Audio Input No Tolerance for Screen Reading Self-Pacing Attention and Reflection Environmental Preferences Learning is Supported by …
STYLE AWARENESS
Engagement Memory Triggering Clear Goal Orientation Learning Needs to Encourage … Ease with Technology Adaptability Independence Development of Engagement Strategy Time Management Learning Style Flexibility Learning Benefits From … Linking Theory and Practice Trial and Error Motivation Visual Triggers Working on Students‟ ZPD
Groups 1&4
Group 2
Group 3
Group 5
X X X
X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X X X
X
X
X
X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X
X
X X
Figure 69. Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments Within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs
281 SUMMARY CROSS ANALYSIS FINDINGS INTERACTION FtF Classes Should Support … AND COMMUNICATION Socialization Interaction Instructor-Std Interaction Std-Std Interaction Communication Participation FtF Classes Should Provide … Immediate Feedback Opportunities for Immediate Q&A Opportunities for Team Work FtF Classes Should Teach …
Groups 1&4
Group 2
Group 3
X X X
X X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Communication Management FtF Classes Should Encourage …
X
X
More Student Q&A Online Classes Need to Become … More Social More Interactive Richer in terms of Experience More Active More Engaging Online Classes Need to Support … Oral Communication Std-Std Interaction Just-in-Time Communication Synchronous Interaction Turn Taking Management Human Relationships After-Class FtF with Instructor After-Class FtF with Students
Group 5
X
X X X X X
X X X
X X X X X
X X
X X
Figure 70. Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments Within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs
282 SUMMARY CROSS ANALYSIS FINDINGS PEDAGOGICAL DESIGN
Groups 1&4
Group 2
Group 3
Balance Amongst Learning Cycles Sufficient Time for 4 Cycles Examples During Lecture Enough Time for Q&A More Time Practice More Time Feedback Opportunities for Exploration FtF Classes Need to Provide …
X X X X X X X
X
Group Support Paced lectures Smaller Lectures Less Content and More Depth FtF Classes Need to Support …
X
Group 5
FtF Classes Need to be … More than Just Listening to Lecture FtF Classes Need to Provide …
X
X X X
Experiential Approach Hands-on Approach Peer-to-Peer Interaction Approach Make to Know Small Group Work ESL Needs FtF Classes Need to Include … Practical Activity Discussion Time Engagement Tactics Support of Slides After-Class Time for FtF w/ Instructor
X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
Figure 71. Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments Within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs
283 SUMMARY CROSS ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Group 5
Learning Spaces Should be …
SPACE AND LEARNING
Quiet Connected to the Internet High Tech Comfortable Furnished for Group Discussion Learning Spaces Should have … Small Staged Lecture Area Student Private Areas Soft Music Background Modern Style Open, Casual Atmosphere Good Lighting Access to Nature
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Figure 72. Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs
SUMMARY CROSS ANALYSIS FINDINGS TRADITIONAL VERSUS ONLINE CLASSROOMS
Groups 1&4
Group 5
Review-ability Time Flexibility Multiple Camera Views of Instructor Presentation Control Student Self-Pacing Provide Real time Access to Experts Provide Connection to Real World Online Classes Should Also Support …
X X X X
X X
Student Commitment Concentration Learning Path Flexibility Online Classes Should be …
X X
Less Buggy More Dynamic More Rewarding
X
FtF Classes Should Also Support …
X X X X X
X X
Figure 73. Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs
284 SUMMARY CROSS ANALYSIS FINDINGS SPECIAL INSTRUCTORS
Groups 1&4
Group 2
Group 3
X X X
X
Group 5
Instructors should be … Energetic, Engaging and Fun Speaker Specific While Making Comments Attentive to Student Learning Like a Mentor Non-Arrogant Not Showy Friendly Positive Confident Charismatic Open-Minded Critical-Minded Demanding Knowledgeable Motivational Passionate about Knowledge Instructors Should Use … Approachable Language
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
Figure 74. Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments Within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms Translated into Needs
category are: the need for personal interactions, fun in learning, and learning through practice. In reference to learning profile and style awareness, all sensorial preferences were found. Some of the findings derived from this category are the need to provide clear goal orientation, and to support all the sensorial modalities and the linking of theory and practice. In terms of interaction and communication, the research revealed that the majority of the students considered that FtF classes provide better support to communication, and that they are more interactive and social, supporting both instructor-student and studentstudent interaction. Some of the findings derived from this category are that FtF classes
285 SUMMARY CROSS ANALYSIS FINDINGS PERCEPTIONS OF THE FUTURE OF LEARNING
In the Future, FtF Learning Environments Will … Be More Personalized Bring More the Real World Be More Interactive Be More Experiential Be More Contextual Be More Small Group Interaction In the Future, Hybrid Learning Environments Will … Be More Interactive Be a Gateway to Real World In the Future, Online Learning Environments Will … Be More Interactive Be Available on Demand Support Mutual Visibility Support Global Access Support Turn Taking Management Support Synchronous Access Support Understanding Personalities Support Real World Simulation Provide Mentorship Provide Multi-Language Access Take Advantage of Web Qualities Deliver Contact
Groups 1&4
Group 2
X X X X
Group 3
Group 5
X X
X X
X X
X X X
X X
X X
X X X X
Figure 75. Perceptions of Learning and Learning Environments Within Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Traditional and Online Classrooms
need to provide immediate feedback, and opportunities for team work and for immediately asking questions. In relation to online classes, some of the findings derived from this category indicate that online classes need to become more social, interactive, active and engaging. In relation to pedagogical design, it was found that some of the students wished to have: clear goals; visible and appealing presentation of information, with real cases, more tangible examples, application of the concepts presented, and links between theory and practice; opportunities for make-to-know; and time or more time for small group work,
286 practice and feedback. Some of the findings derived from this category indicate that FtF classes need to be more than just listening to lecture, and that a balance amongst the four learning cycles should be achieved, with sufficient time for each phase, but not necessarily in equal proportions. Regarding space and learning, it was found that some of the students prefer quiet, high-tech spaces, with Internet connection, arranged for group discussion. Some of the findings derived from this category indicate that classrooms should be designed for multiple, complementary purposes, with, for instance, a small staged lecture area, a location for group discussion and a few private student spots. Another alternative is to have external, complementary spaces that can support classroom interaction. In regard to traditional versus online classrooms, the research revealed that the distinction between the two is, many times, very fuzzy for some of the students. The majority considered the FtF classroom better, or easier to learn, concentrate and feel committed to. But some students consider the online classes more flexible in terms of time and location, and supportive of reviewability of the content. The online classes, however, are also buggy, flat, static, boring, and not as rewarding as FtF classes. Some of the findings derived from this category indicate that FtF classes should also support reviewability and time flexibility, providing real time connection to the real world outside the classroom. And online classes should also support student commitment, increased concentration, and learning path flexibility. Referring to special instructors, it was found that some of the students described their inspiring instructors as a knowledgeable, fun and engaging speakers - like storytellers, who also adopt the mentor approach, allowing exploration without unnecessary interference. In addition, favorite teachers make specific comments on what each one is talking about, and also make sure all the students are on
287 the right track during group activity, stimulating thought and exploration in other directions. Some of the findings derived from this category indicate that instructors need to be charismatic, energetic, motivational and passionate about knowledge; and also use approachable language. And, finally, in relation to perceptions of the future of learning, the research revealed that some of the students believe that in the future: FtF, hybrid and online classrooms will be more interactive, allowing mutual visibility of interactants around the world. Classrooms will become like gateways to world interaction, linking students to others with similar interests and building a community around mentorship and knowledge sharing. Some of the findings derived from this category indicate FtF learning environments need to be more personalized, interactive, experiential and contextual, bringing the real world inside. 5.1.6. Cross-Analysis and Synthesis of the Research Data and Implications for the Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. This sub-section brings together all the research data from: 1) use of time, learning cycles and pedagogical design; 2) use of space and higher, intermediate and lower level actions; 3) spatial design categories; 4) available media, modes and technology, and their use; 5) multimodality and learning needs and abilities; and 6) purposes, desires and perceptions of learning and learning environments. Next, it examines the implications of the affordances and limitations identified in the research in contrast to the identified purposes, desires, needs, abilities and modes of interaction of students. Finally, it links the findings to some of the implications for the design of TELE. Figures 76 and 77 summarize the findings.
288 Looking across all the six above mentioned units of data analysis, some patterns were found. For instance, an average of 85% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information in all the 26 different learning spaces that were observed - both graduate Computer Science and Design, and both traditional and online. As seen, oneway delivery of information - including lecture, projecting slides, and/or writing on the white boards or yellow pads - mainly supports modalities such as: gaze, handwriting, doodling, in-place body movement, body posture, mouse clicking, laptop keyboard typing and some speech. In this way, it mainly accommodates the auditory aural students, secondarily, the verbal visual, and lastly the mechanical motor. But as discussed previously, in terms of sensorial preferences for intake or output of information, out of 153, visual preferences were dominant, 58 – combining verbal and imagistic, followed by motor preferences, 54 – with dominance of fine motor or mechanic over gross motor or kinesthetic, 32 to 22. The auditory modality was least frequently found amongst students, 41 – with high dominance of aural preference over oral preference, 34 to 7. In this way, the emphasis on only one learning cycle, using lecture as the main pedagogical approach was inadequate to accommodate the variety of sensorial preferences and needs found amongst students. Considering the opportunities for motor engagement that were missing within groups 1, 3 and 4 - except for in-place, individual body movement, such as in leg shaking and handwriting - it is clear that these students were the ones least accommodated by the pedagogical design of these classes.
289 SUMMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS
Pedagogical Design
One-way Two-way Hands-on Feedback
Pedagogical Approach
Lecture Slides Board Sketches Demonstration Prototyping Discussion Q&A Presentation Feedback
Student Supported Modes of Representation
Student Supported Sensorial Modalities
Pedagogical Affordances
Space Category
whole body in-place manipulation speech gaze handwriting posture gesture clicking typing
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
93% 7% 0% 0%
64% 10% 20% 6%
93% 7% 0% 0%
100% 0% 0% 0%
X X X
X
X X
X X X
X
X
X
X x X X X X X
visual verbal visual imagistic motor kinesthetic motor mechanic auditory oral auditory aural
X X
info visibility info audibility interactivity discussion-ability questionability practice-ability performance-ability feedback-ability notetake-ability info reviewability
X X
auditorium unidirectional classroom “l” classroom computer lab individual area small group area large group area
X
Figure 76. Summary Research Findings 1
X x X
x
X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
x X X X
X X X
X X
X X
X X X X X X
X X
X X
X x X
X
X X X X X X X X X
X X
x x
X
X
X
x
X X
X X
X
290 SUMMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS
Available Media, Technology & Objects
View of Learning
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
computer multimedia projector large screen TV monitor white board document camera video camera microphone speakers
X X X X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X X X X X X X
passive learner active learner no peer discussion peer discussion no collaboration group collaboration pair collaboration no theory practice link theory practice (examples, cases) teacher-centered student-centered unidirectional communication multidirectional communication
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X
X X
X X
Figure 77. Summary Research Findings 2
In contrast with the above results, group two class, with the presence of the four cycles of learning, accommodated well the different student profiles and learning preferences. As seen, the presence of the four learning cycles supports modalities such as: whole body movement, material manipulation, speech, vocal characterizer (such as laugher), gaze, handwriting, body posture, gesture, facial expression, proxemics, mouse clicking and laptop keyboard typing. In this way, it accommodates well motor kinesthetic and mechanic, visual imagistic and verbal, and auditory aural and oral students. Regarding view of learning, communicational balance and the presence or absence of rich opportunities for collaboration, groups one, three and four seemed to be opposed to group two. As repeatedly pointed out, the more the predominance of one-way delivery was observed, the more the class was found passive from the student‟s point of
291 view. In contrast, the presence of opportunities for the students to work together and construct meaning iteratively, even in a really small proportion, was sufficient to make classes more active and alive. The presence of opportunities to do something in practice and to hear feedback from the instructor seemed to create new opportunities for students to understand their progress and correct misconceptions. And the presence of opportunities for two-way narrative guidance seemed to create opportunities for students to construct meaning through questions and answers, or to hear and learn from others interaction. Consequently, the emphasis on one-way delivery of information placed the learner in the passive role, and revealed a static view of learning. While the presence of the different learning cycles placed the learner in a more active role, or role of meaning construction, and revealed a dynamic view of learning where peer to peer interaction is supportive of this process, together with opportunities to link theory and practice, and to get feedback on one‟s progress towards defined learning goals. From the points of view of several data analysis sets, balanced communication and rich opportunities for collaboration predominated on group two, in opposition to the results found in groups one, three and four, where the predominance of in-place body movement with few opportunities for speech, limited students opportunities for action and mobility led to the predominance of imbalanced communication and lack of opportunities for collaboration. Looking together at the affordances of the spaces, technology and pedagogical design, and contrasting these with the students identified purposes, desires, needs, abilities and modes of interaction, it was found, for instance, that all the observed learning spaces were not adequately designed to support student-student interaction, socialization and communication. The auditorium classroom, for instance, with its fixed
292 chairs, is mainly designed to support one-way delivery of information, such as lectures with slide show. In order to support two-way narrative construction, microphones, for example, could be available at the students‟ seats, and be turned on or off, so that their voices were audible to all when a question was made or when engaging in discussion. In order to support individual hands-on practice activity, larger desks would probably need to be available to students, or, perhaps, ready sets of parts could be handed to students or unfolded from their chairs, so that they could work, despite the small surface area available. And in order to support group hands-on practice activity, group tables and chairs could be available, not necessarily in the same room. Like in the case of group two instructor, other rooms in the building were used by students during the activity section. Group working areas could be arranged at the university and shared across instructors, upon reservation. Regarding pedagogical design of the observed classes, a need for transforming the student experience into something more than just a lecture was found. A possible alternative is to have smaller chunks of lecture combined with small activities. Another alternative would be giving group assignments, instead of individual homework, and scheduling feedback sections with the instructor during office hours. Looking at technological affordances, such as reviewability, and the desire of FtF classroom students to be able to review the class material after class, could be provided by recording live classes and making the material available online. These were a few examples of identified needs and some insights that can guide design. The implications of the findings for the design of TELE are examined in more detail in the sub-section 6.2, named design criteria for technology enhanced multimodal learning environments.
293 CHAPTER 6 RESEARCH SYNTHESIS
This chapter proceeds with other dimensions of the findings: 6.1) Models for Describing Affordances; 6.2) Evolving Framework for Analyzing Multimodality; 6.3) Principles and Design Criteria for Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments; 6.4) Scenario of Desirable Future Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments; and 6.5) Methodological
Framework
for
Designing
Technology-Enhanced
Learning
Environments. Models for Describing Affordances identify existing simple and complex models, and builds on existing theory in order to write or describe the different types of affordances, their combined structure and supporting elements. Simple to complex models are presented sequentially, starting with a well known set of rules for naming affordances. From there it moves to more complex models that describe interrelated elements related to an affordance, to even more complex sets of rules that allow the description of the combined structure of a group of affordances. Each model and process is illustrated with examples. Evolving Framework for Analyzing Multimodality expands on the multimodal analysis model proposed by Norris (2004), as adapted by Moura (2006a), tailoring it to the fast-paced design process and emphasizing the need to communicate main findings visually – through images, and not only through text – to other design team members, including relevant aspects of the different multiple fused semiotic modalities that together, rather than seen in separation, help extend the understanding of the interaction that takes place.
294 Design Criteria for Technology-Enhanced Multimodal Learning Environments, based on the research findings and identified clusters of user needs, proposes nine areas for design criteria that can help guide the design of TELE. It also extracts a sample list of principles, and recommendations, illustrating how criteria can be extracted from the analysis process. Based on the synthesis of the research data and the identified design criteria, Scenario of Desirable Future Learning Environments illustrates through a sample narrative how the identified affordances and design criteria could support envisioning and designing new TELE and tools. Methodological Framework for Designing TELE proposes a synthesized model for bringing multimodality and affordances to the design of TELE. It identifies different models based on the analysis structures used in the research, linking each to one step within a process that starts with in situ user observation and leads to design criteria that can inform the design of innovative TELE.
6.1.
Models for Describing Affordances
This sub-section builds on existing theory in order to propose a set of rules, from basic to complex, for describing the different types of affordances and their structure in some detail, including a simplified model for combining affordances and design principles. Table 49 lists, based on the outcomes of this research, some of the desirable affordances of TELE, described as abilities, and grouped into pedagogical, technological and spatial types of affordances. Table 50 lists sample clusters of the affordances, demonstrating how they can be structured together - since, in any real world situation, a
295 large number of inter-related affordances are available to an active organism, structured together, and not in isolation, to convey important goal-relevant information (Rasmussen and Vicente, 1989, 1992). But before the presentation of the affordance writing rules, the discussion on the topic of affordances that was introduced in the literature review chapter is extended here to include the three types of affordances that are relevant to this section: technological, pedagogical and spatial. Technological affordances refer to the relationship between the infrastructure of information and communication technologies and their use made by people (Conole and Dyke, 2004). The authors argue that a clear articulation of technological affordances can enable the understanding of how technologies of dissemination and representation can be most effectively used to support learning and teaching, helping someone who wants to find either the best way to use a tool or the best tool to achieve a goal. Conole and Weller (2007) propose that the concept of affordances potentially offers a means of bridging the gap between technologies and pedagogies. By allowing technologies and pedagogies to be described in conceptual terms, affordances can facilitate the selection of a technology to suit a particular pedagogy, and the selection of a particular pedagogy to suit a desired outcome (Weller, 2007). Conole and Dyke (2004) suggest a taxonomy of affordances for computers in education, including: accessibility; speed of change; diversity; communicability and ease of collaboration; reflection-ability; multimodality and nonlinearity; immediacy; and monopolization-ability and surveillance-ability. Pedagogical affordances correspond to the possibilities for learning to occur, based on the relationship between the properties of the pedagogy adopted and the use made by instructor and learners. Pedagogy refers to both learning and teaching
296 approaches (Conole, 2007), which are translated into a sequence of tasks or procedures that are performed by teachers and learners, and that exist in a particular context. Supported, in this way, by contextual affordances and deeply intertwined with interactional and communicational affordances, pedagogical affordances relate to the affordances of teaching and learning tasks, and also to supporting techniques, technologies, materials and, objects. In this way, within TELE, pedagogical and technological affordances interface. Spatial affordances are the relationships between the properties of places and objects within it (Jordan, Raubal, Gartrell, and Egenhofer, 1998), and their actual use. They play a key role in an experiential view of space (Lakoff 1988, Mark and Frank 1996) and place, whether physical or virtual, because they offer a user-centered perspective. Raubal and Frank (1999) group spatial affordances into four categories, reflecting different task situations: individual user (e.g., move), user and individual entity (e.g., objectify), user and multiple entities (e.g., differentiate), and groups of users (e.g., communicate). According to the authors, this list is not meant to be exhaustive, and does not include negative affordances such as getting lost. Heft (1996) argues that places in the environment have functional significance for individuals and groups of individuals, e.g., travel to places to utilize and engage in their affordances. There are a few different approaches or rules for writing, naming or describing affordances. The following paragraphs seek both to systematize existing models for describing affordances and to introduce new ones, usually building on existing models. The first model presented here is called the „Basic Model‟ (figure 78), and it has three variations. The first variation attaches the adjective „easy‟ to a verb, such as in „easy to
297 read‟, indicating that, for instance, a font type, with a certain size, printed on a certain paper, representing a certain content, due to these combined characteristics, affords reading easily. The second alternate way to describe affordances within the basic model is through the use of nouns that support or constrain an ability, action or state, by combining verbs with the suffix „ability‟ – such as climb-ability, readability, communicability and sociability. The third alternative within this model is based on some of Gibson‟s (1982) illustrations of affordances. The author provided the following examples when describing surfaces and surface-layouts related to posture and locomotion: a stand-on-able surface of support (a place that affords rest); a walk-on-able surface (a surface that affords „footing‟, which, for terrestrial locomotion, must be composed of a substratum that is nearly level and rigid, excluding water surfaces); and a vertical rigid surface (an obstacle that affords collision and bars locomotion). In this way, the author proposed the use of a combination of verb plus optional preposition, plus suffix able, plus the object or place or substance to describe affordances.
Syntax
Example
a) Ease of + Verb
easy to climb
b) Verb + ability
climb-ability
c) Verb + preposition + able + object, place, substance that affords
a climb-on-able surface
Figure 78. Basic Model for Describing Affordances A variation of the basic model is named here the „Simplified Model‟ (figure 79). It arises from the combination of the affordance and the principle descriptions. This model, like the basic model, is useful in contexts where defining affordances in detail is not necessary, and where a quicker description is useful. Some examples of design principles are: a) to accommodate sensorial preference for intake of information, and b)
298 to support meaning construction through rich interactional opportunities. Each of these two principles could be associated to one or more affordances that make the action possible - in the first case, for instance, inclusiveness, and, in the second case, communicability, for example. Thus the affordance principle would combine the affordance and the principle together, making it easier to understand meaning and context of reference: a) inclusiveness – accommodate sensorial preference for intake of information; and b) communicability – provide rich opportunities for meaning construction. In the same way that more than one affordance can be associated to one principle; more than one principle can be associated to a single affordance.
Composition
Example
a) Basic Model Affordance Description + Principle Description
easy to use (or usability, or a usable mouse) + Supportive Technologies
Figure 79. Simplified Model for Describing Affordances
Another way to describe affordances was suggested by Rasmussen (1986), who, by mapping Gibson‟s affordances towards the means-ends hierarchy, found that affordances could be structured in that format. The interrelationships between affordances and the levels of means-end hierarchy are articulated as „why‟, „how‟ and „what‟, which is another way to describe affordances and their structure. Pata (2007) suggests rules for affordance-writing that includes the relationship between subjects who perform activities within an environment, with the tools or artifacts that support them to realize their objectives, based on Gibson‟s (1977) distinction between the affordances of the environment and the effectivities of the subjects. In this view, the perception of affordances is dynamically changing during the activity, since the relationship of the
299 subject (with certain effectivities, performing some actions in this environment with some tools or artifacts), and the environment (with certain affordances) enables each person to perceive in a particular moment in time a unique set of affordances related to the environment. Based on that, three important elements of affordance description arise: subject (effectivities: e.g. objectives, what to do); activity or action, and operation (how to realize objectives); and mediator – including environment, tool, and artifact (affordances: e.g. properties that support/hinder reaching the objectives through certain actions). In this way, an affordance description would involve not only one element, such as „readability‟, but at least two or three components (Pata, 2007): action verb and subject noun (e.g. track_person); or action verb and artifact noun (e.g. comment_artifact); or action verb and subject noun and artifact noun (e.g. reuse_community_artifact); or action verb and subject noun and subject adjective (e.g. reflect_community_meaning); or action verb and artifact noun and artifact adjective (e.g. share_aggregated_artifact); or action verb and activity noun (e.g. capture_lecture); or action verb and activity noun and activity adjective - subject or artifact related property (e.g. present_lecture_one‟to‟many). Considering the importance of describing the relationship of the properties and their use by a subject within a specific context through its affordances, the third model for describing affordances is proposed, named the „Relational Model‟ (figure 80), based on the above cited works. (1) {Subject} [WHO/WHAT] plus (2) {goal and environment} [WHY & WHERE], plus (3) {by} [PREPOSITION], plus (4) {action taken to achieve goal} [HOW], plus (5) {mediating tools and artifacts} [BY WHICH MEANS], colon (6) {affordance} [RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPERTIES AND USE]. Which means: (1) noun or name of someone or something, plus (2) sentence describing goal and where
300 it occurs (action verbs, nouns, preposition and nouns), plus (3) the preposition „by‟, plus (4) action verbs that support the achievement of the goal, plus (5) nouns and adjectives that describe the tools, artifacts and their properties, attributes or qualifiers, colon (6) nouns describing affordances.
Syntax
(1) {Subject} [WHO/WHAT] plus (2) {goal and environment} [WHY & WHERE], plus (3) {by} [PREPOSITION], plus (4) {action taken to achieve goal} [HOW], plus (5) {mediating tools and artifacts} [BY WHICH MEANS], colon (6) {affordance} [RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPERTIES AND USE].
Figure 80. Relational Model for Describing Affordances
For instance, supposing a particular situation where Jane is climbing on a wheeled chair and not falling from it, with the goal to change a lamp on the wall. These relationships could be described as (Figure 81): {Jane} + {change lamp on the wall BY stepping on} + {stable, medium height chair, with locked wheels} : {climb-ability; stability}. That is:
{Jane}
+
SUBJECT
+
{change lamp on the wall BY stepping on} GOAL VERB(S), OBJECT, ENVIRONMENT
SUPPORTING VERB(S)
{medium height chair, with locked wheels}
:
{climb-ability}; {stability}.
MEDIATOR(S) AND PROPERTIES
Figure 81. Sample Affordance Description 1, Relational Model
AFFORDANCE(S)
301 Another example would be John selecting a Web link through mouse and information visible on the computer screen. Part of these relationships could be described as (Figure 82): {John} + {select Web link on BY clicking on} + {light weight, hard surface mouse with two buttons or switches} : { click-ability; moveability; track-ability}. That is:
{John} SUBJECT
+
+
{select Web link on the computer screen BY clicking on} GOAL VERB(S), OBJECT, LOCATION
SUPPORTING VERB(S)
{light, hard surface mouse with two buttons or switches} MEDIATOR(S) AND PROPERTIES
:
{click-ability}; {move-ability}; {track-ability}. AFFORDANCE(S)
Figure 82. Sample Affordance Description 2, Relational Model
In the above examples, it becomes clear that affordances typically are structured together, while supporting a certain action. According to Jewitt (2004b), affordances need to be considered together, and not in isolation, since combined structures take meaning that are often different from the individual ones. A fourth way to describe affordances, named the „Extended Model‟, combines the „Relational Model‟ with perceived possibilities for action, actual use, and missed opportunities for action (figure 83).
302 Composition (1) Relational Model plus (2) Perceived possibilities for action, plus (3) Actual use, plus (4) Missed opportunities for action.
Figure 83. Extended Model for Describing Affordances
These four models for describing affordances are useful in the process of translating insights from analysis into design criteria, and they correspond to one of the steps of the methodological framework for bringing multimodality and affordances to design of TELE.
Table 49 Sample List of Desirable Affordances of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments AFFORDANCES Affordance
Sample List of Affordances
Category Pedagogical
Sociability, Presence, Simultaneity, Multimodal Communicability, Communication Manageability, Audibility, Image/Text Visibility, Face Expression Visibility, Readability, Haptic Feedback Perception-ability, Information Dissemination-ability, Collaboration-ability, Activity, Interactivity, Contextualizationability, Experimentation-ability, Manipulability, Enact-ability, Meaning Construction-ability, Learn-ability, Synchronicity, Asynchronicity, Reflection-ability, Emotion-Expression-ability,
303 AFFORDANCES Affordance
Sample List of Affordances
Category Pedagogical
Entertain-ability, Motivation-ability
Technological
Accessibility, Input/Output Control, Media Reviewability, User Recognition, System Adaptability, System Adaptivity, System Task Feedback Immediacy, Remote Accessibility, Device Move-ability, Device Click-ability, System Track-ability, Feedback Immediacy, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Customization, Upgradeability, Usability
Spatial
Layout Multi-Configurability, Furniture Multi-Directionality, Noise and Sound Manageability, Furniture Ergonomics, Ambiance
Table 50 Sample Clusters of Desirable Affordances of Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments SAMPLE AFFORDANCE CLUSTERS Affordance Clusters
Description
1) Remote Accessibility Plus
Students discuss group activity goals remotely (1) on
2) Communicability Plus
the virtual classroom by each one speaking in front of a
3) Visibility Plus
web camera (2), clearly viewing all classmates faces
4) Audibility Plus
displayed through software on the screen (3), listening
5) Communication
(4) to one of them speaking (2), and selecting (5), by
Manageability Plus
moving the mouse (6) and clicking (7) its button, a
304 SAMPLE AFFORDANCE CLUSTERS Affordance Clusters
Description
6) Move-ability Plus
Web link for turn taking management (5), which
7) Click-ability Plus
immediately raises the student electronic hand (8, 9)
8) Track-ability Plus
and places it on a queue of other electronic hands.
9) Feedback Immediacy 1) Readability Plus
After receiving an activity packet and reading
2) Multi-Configurability Plus
assignment written description (1), students stand up
3) Manipulability Plus
and reconfigure the classroom layout by pulling the
4) Experimentation-ability
wheeled chairs and tables together (2), sitting and
Plus
placing activity block pieces on the table surface,
5) Build-ability Plus
manipulating the blocks (3), individually
6) Collaboration-ability
experimenting with the fit of the pieces together (4) to build a prototype (5), then working together (6) with others while building the object.
6.2.
Evolving Framework for Analyzing Multimodality
This sub-section summarizes an evolving multimodal analysis framework, presented in detail, and illustrated in chapter two, which, in the future, could evolve into a notational system. The framework, originally proposed by Norris (2004) and then adapted by Moura (2006a), was tailored to the fast-paced design process and it supports the need to communicate main findings visually, and not only textually, to other design
305 team members, including relevant aspects of the different multiple modalities that together, rather than in isolation, help improve the understanding of the interaction that takes place. In this way, it provides a strategy for conducting both a telescopic and microscopic analysis of the interaction in a time efficient manner, making it possible to extract deeper insights about users‟ modes of interaction within particular contexts, even under very constrained time frames. The multimodal analysis framework starts by placing telescopic or higher level focus on multiple, complementary modes of interaction, or multimodality, across time and space. Next, it seeks to systematically guide the methodological choices the researcher needs to make in order to select the main instances of the interaction for refined multimodal analysis. Finally, it proposes a strategy for systematizing and quickly communicating the main findings visually, including all the relevant multimodal aspects of the interaction. During the telescopic phase, the major patterns of use of time and space, and activity types are identified, allowing the visual mapping of the interactional meaning units that take place (Figure 84). This step is followed by the intermediary phase (Figure 84), where the selection of the higher-level actions for detailed analysis (for example, a conversation) is made, following established criteria. During the selection, it is important both to include the units that can help build an overview of the entire process and a focus on the more significant clusters. After the selection of the higher level actions, the intermediate level actions (which are smaller sequences of actions within a higher level action - for instance, Sally turns to John to ask what time they will need to leave, followed by John‟s reply)
306 MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK SUMMARY TELESCOPIC PHASE Use of Time and Activity Types (See figure 4)
Use of Space (See figures 5 and 6)
INTERMEDIARY PHASE Selection of higher, intermediate and lower level actions for detailed analysis (See chapter two for more details).
MICROSCOPIC PHASE Detailed multimodal analysis of selected instances (See figure 7).
VISUAL COMMUNICATION OF MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS Communicating main findings visually (See figures 8, 9, 10 and 11).
Figure 84. Multimodal Analysis Framework Summary
307 and lower level actions within each (such as an intonation unit) are identified, and selected according to relevance. This step is succeeded by the definition of the larger heuristic units or communicative codes of analysis (kinesics, for example) and, within each, the intermediate heuristic units or communicative modes of analysis (such as facial expression), as well as the smaller sub-units within each (like eye gesture), whenever relevant. These steps are followed by the microscopic phase (Figure 84), where the analysis of each communicative mode is made with all its sub-units separately, as suggested by Norris (2004), then the communicative modes in combination, next the communicative code, and, finally, all the higher-level actions.
6.3.
Principles and Design Criteria for Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
This sub-section presents a set of principles and a sample list of criteria for designing Technology-Enhanced Multimodal Learning Environments based on the findings from the study. The purpose of this list is merely to illustrate how the analysis process can be linked to the identification of design criteria and not to make generalizations on how the design of TELE should be conducted. Nine major categories emerged from the data analysis clustering and were translated into the format of principles as following: Multi-Cyclic Pedagogic Strategy, Multiple
Modes
of
Interaction,
Managed
Communication,
Expanded
Social
Relationships, Supported Emotional Expression, Supportive Technologies, MultiFunctional Spaces, Continuous Teacher Training, and Oriented Learners. Figures 85
308 through 93 present sample criteria organized into the nine principles. In addition, on Table 51, these principles are linked to sample design recommendations.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
MultiCyclic Pedagogy Principle
Pedagogical design shall … Have clear learning goals to guide the development of a course. Focus on higher order learning skills and not simply memorization of facts throughout a course. Help students understand the learning goals of the course they are taking from the start. Balance the amount of content covered in a course in order to allow rich learning experience. Adopt an exploratory approach to learning whenever possible. Balance the presence of the four learning cycles throughout a course, not necessarily in equal proportions, in order to support different aspects of learning. Include, in a class, at least two learning cycles, and the difference in time given to each should be balanced. Chunk lectures into pieces no longer than 1 hour and alternate with other learning activities. Provide, throughout a course, opportunities for individual to group work, ideally always including discussion. Make available abundant examples, case studies, tangible demonstrations and other ways of contextualizing the presented information in order to link theory and practice. Support contextualization and generalization of learning. Include, throughout a course, rich opportunities for student-student discussion, in both physical and virtual classrooms. Include, throughout a course, rich opportunities for asking questions, in both physical and virtual classrooms. Include, throughout a course, rich opportunities for receiving instructor feedback on learning activity or performance, in both physical and virtual classrooms. Include, during group activities, opportunities for receiving instructor feedback, in both physical and virtual classrooms. Motivate students to achieve higher levels of performance in ways that are inspiring to them and not stressful. Provide an active role to students in classes. Always encourage student participation. Provide opportunities to students for adapting learning path to their needs in the virtual classrooms. Make available after-class opportunities for student-student face-to-face and online interaction.
Figure 85. Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Multi-Cyclic Pedagogy Principle
In order to exemplify how the research moved from observations and quotes to patterns, to insights, to principles, three examples are provided: implications to pedagogy, implications to space, and implications to technology. Examining some of the
309 implications of the research findings to pedagogy, it was found that learning spaces with high emphasis on one-way delivery of information and absence of most other learning cycles tended to be more passive from the students point of view, as demonstrated in the analysis and cross-analysis of the data on chapters four and five. And that the presence of two-way narrative guidance and construction, especially when coupled with hands-on activity, led to increase in activity, and in opportunities for multimodal interaction and learning. These are some of the insights that led to the „Multi-Cyclic Pedagogy Principle‟.
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
Multiple Modes of Interaction Principle
Pedagogical Design shall … Accommodate multiple sensorial preferences for intake and output of information through the learning activities. Accommodate multimodal expression through the learning activities. Include visual, auditory and motor memory triggers in the learning activities to support information recall. Encourage student-student physical/virtual interaction. Encourage student -teacher physical/virtual interaction.
Technological design shall … Support multimodal representation of information. Support input and output of information through multiple sensorial preferences. Support one-to-one synchronous physical/virtual interactions. Support one-to-many synchronous physical/virtual interactions. Support many-to-many asynchronous virtual interactions.
Spatial Design shall … Accommodate multiple modes of interaction. Support multiple modes of interaction.
Figure 86. Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Multiple Modes of Interaction Principle
310 Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
Managed Communication
Pedagogical design shall … Support just-in-time communication through different modes of representation. Support synchronous and asynchronous communication in both physical and virtual spaces. Support physical/virtual group discussion management
Principle Technological design shall … Support synchronous and asynchronous communication in both physical and virtual spaces. Support virtual turn-taking management. in the physical and virtual spaces Facilitate asking questions at any time in the physical or virtual spaces without disturbing the flow of the class. Facilitate obtaining immediate response from instructor and/or classmates in the physical or virtual spaces. Ease scheduling of synchronous physical/virtual interactions. Ease management of virtual meeting schedule.
Figure 87. Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Managed Communication Principle
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
Expanded Social Relationships Principle
Pedagogical Design shall … Guide physical/virtual socialization amongst students and instructors. Support human relationship building. Support the expression of human personality. Leverage social fun and learning. Promote non hierarchy in relationships. Encourage sharing of life experiences.
Technological design shall … Make social virtual interaction areas available synchronously and asynchronously. Support social grouping around themes of interest, mixing novices and experts, and encouraging mentorship. Make available new opportunities for socialization through the use of collaboration tools.
Figure 88. Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Expanded Social Relationships Principle
311 Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments Pedagogical design shall …
Supported
Make teacher-student and student-student encouragement available in the physical or virtual spaces.
Emotional
Encourage sharing of inspiring personal stories. Take into account the support of emotional experiences.
Expression Principle
Encourage close relationships.
Spatial design shall … Provide a motivational area in the physical or virtual spaces.
Technological design shall … Support communicational difficulties of ESL students. Support the expression of emotional tone in the physical or virtual spaces.
Figure 89. Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Supported Emotional Expression Principle
Regarding the implications of the findings to space design, it was found that the observed Computer Science classrooms were mainly uni-directional and that there was a lack of other spaces to support student face-to-face interaction. In contrast, Design students used alternative classroom spaces or moved chairs/tables to sit face-to-face during group work. These are some of the insights that led to the „Multi-Functional Space Principle‟. In relation to implications of the findings to technology, it was found that, in all observed classrooms, media and technology were used to support one-way delivery of information only, with representation of text, image, and asynchronous speech and movement. This resulted in: overall unbalance in instructor and student use of technology (except Design hands-on class) and in missed opportunities for communication. These are some of the insights that led to the „Supportive Technology Principle‟.
312 Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
Supportive Technologies Principle
Technological design shall … Provide a high-tech environment. Provide Internet access in the physical classroom. Support synchronous remote access to the physical classroom. Support simultaneous visibility of the online students in the physical classroom. Support simultaneous visibility of instructor and students in the physical classroom to online students. Support reviewability of content in both physical and virtual spaces. Support pacing and control of the virtual presentation video. Make available a non-disruptive tool for submitting questions in the physical classroom to allow students to get immediate answers from other students and/or immediate or later response from the instructor. Make available in the virtual environment a communication management tool, including a turn taking management and group discussion facilitation functions, integrated with other communication tools such as video chat, discussion board and email. Make available online a time management tool to both instructors and students to help manage in class and after class time and activities. Make available multi-language support tools to ESL students. Make available in the physical classroom automatic and semi-automatic video and still image capturing technology to continuously record the presentations and to capture selected still images at mouse command. Recorded and streamed physical classroom presentation in video, audio only and still image slide show formats, with multiple platforms in mind. Make available a community portal, with access from both physical and virtual classrooms. Provide to students access to experts or mentors through the community portal. Provided to students access to real world information related to class material through the community portal. Through adaptive technologies support more personalized interactions within the community portal. Through attentive technology make „help‟ available for students who want to stay focused on learning tasks. Provide access to the virtual system from multiple platforms. Plan for upgrading of the virtual system. Support collaboration and sharing of ideas through the virtual system.
Figure 90. Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Supportive Technologies Principle
313 Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
Multi-Functional Spaces Principle
Spatial design shall … Support multiple spatial configurations, including presentation area, small group discussion area, and individual work area. Support regulation of noise and sound levels according to spatial configuration in order to accommodate various activities purposes. Support student face-to-face interaction in the presentation and group discussion spatial configurations. Limit the number of students in the physical space to a manageable size Provide surfaces for object manipulation. Provide options for listening to soft music, not audible elsewhere, for individual work area. Provide an open floor organization style. Have comfort in mind. Make available adjustable lighting in each area, ranging from soft to strong. Provide physical or virtual access, either immersive, or simply visible, to nature.
Figure 91. Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Multi-Functional Space Principle
Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
Continuous Teacher Training Principle
(Institutional) Pedagogical design shall … Make available continuous pedagogical training to instructors, covering, amongst other things, pedagogical approaches, accommodation of learning preferences, integration of educational technology, and linking of theory and practice. Make available continuous technological training to instructors in order to increase level of comfort with new technology, master use and application, and share experiences. Make available continuous theatrical performance training to instructors to improve presentation skills.
Figure 92. Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Continued Teacher Training Principle
314 Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
Oriented Learners Principle
(Institutional) Pedagogical design shall … Plan for screening of students previous knowledge at the beginning of the program, and that information should be provided to instructors and be used to inform the pedagogical design of the course. Provide training in learning style awareness and flexibility development to students at the beginning of the program. Plan to offer training in meta-cognitive strategies to students at the beginning of the program. Provide cultural sensibility training to students participating in international programs. Provide training in team working skills to students at the beginning of the program. Provide training in time management skills to students at the beginning of the program. Provide theatrical performance training to students at the beginning of and throughout the program to improve presentation skills.
(Institutional) Pedagogical design shall … Provide continuous English language training to students participating in international programs with English as the main language.
Figure 93. Sample Criteria for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, Oriented Learners Principle
Table 51 Sample Recommendations for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments Sample Recommendations for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments Principle
Affordances
Criteria
Recommendation
Managed
Remote and
Support easy
Online spatial design
Communication Enhanced FtF
communication
should provide tool for
Principle
Communicability
management face-
managing communication,
Manageability
to-face and at a
including turn taking and
315 Sample Recommendations for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments Principle
Affordances
Criteria
Managed
Visibility of
Communication
Interactants
Support easy
should provide tool for
Principle
Audibility of
visibility of facial
managing communication,
Interactants
expression.
including turn taking and
Feedback
Support easy
overlap management.
Immediacy
listening to
Etc.
Etc.
questions.
distance.
Recommendation Online spatial design
Support obtaining responses immediately. Etc.
Some examples of design criteria within the nine main areas follow. In regards to the „Multi-Cyclic Pedagogic Strategy Principle‟, some of the outcome design criteria are to: help students understand the learning goals of the course they are taking from the start; and balance the presence of the four learning cycles throughout a course, not necessarily in equal proportions, in order to support different aspects of learning. In reference to the „Multiple Modes of Interaction Principle‟, some sample design criteria
316 are to support: from intimate to social proxemics; one-to-one to one-to-many physical and/or virtual interactions; and visual, auditory and motor sensorial preferences during interactions. In relation to the „Managed Communication Principle‟, some of the design criteria are to: support virtual turn-taking management in the physical and virtual spaces; facilitate asking questions at any time in the physical or virtual spaces without disturbing the flow of the class; and facilitate obtaining real-time response from instructor and/or classmates in the physical or virtual spaces. Regarding the „Expanded Social Relationships Principle‟, some of the design criteria are to: support human relationship building; support the expression of human personality; leverage social fun and learning; and promote non-hierarchical relationships. One of the sample recommendations, for instance, in reference to the managed communication principle, is: to allow online students to see classroom students and instructor easily in the online space, and to allow classroom students and instructor to see online students‟ projection easily in the physical space, allowing focus on single individuals and viewing the whole group simultaneously.
6.4.
Scenario of Desirable Future Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
This sub-section illustrates through a sample scenario, Figure 94, how the identified affordances and design criteria could support envisioning and designing new TELE and tools. In addition, it builds an argument to support multimodality through the technological, pedagogical and spatial affordances, in the development of TELE. As discussed, multimodality is present in every human interaction. As seen in the main and complementary video ethnographic studies, multimodality is present in
317 SCENARIO Online Students Accessing TELE from Different Places in the World and Expert Speaking from Somewhere in Chicago
Live, FtF Classroom with instructor and 24
Scenario Description
students during lecture section Student H1 sits on a half-circle table together with two other students during lecture time. On one of the large screen behind the teacher and on the shared screens in each table, the online students are visible and can interact through text or raise their online hands to speak to the whole class. At one point in the lecture, an expert interacts through the video conferencing system H1
and answers questions. Next, the class is split into four groups of six, and the students quickly rearrange the wheeled tables into circles and start discussing the goals of the activity and setting time for discussion, for exploration of materials and for presentation preparation. While the groups interact, the instructor comes by to make sure students are on the right track.
Figure 94. Sample Scenario
318 everything students do. The results of constrained multimodality were observed in students as they shook their legs frenetically, while sitting through three hours of lecture, and eventually fell asleep. The results of supported multimodality were also observed as students eagerly explored Lego pieces in search for desirable parts, and built large mock up prototypes and enacted their use, while interacting with a group of students. Richer support to multimodality was found in classrooms which included more than one of the four different cycles of learning – teacher-student or student-student oneway narrative construction, teacher-student or student-student two-way narrative construction, group or individual hands-on activity or performance, and teacher-student or student-student feedback on performance – even in very unbalanced proportions. Poorer support to multimodality and fewer opportunities for meaning construction was found in classrooms with a high predominance of one-way delivery of information. Pedagogical design was more influential than space design. Spatial design, however, was found not to be unimportant for materializing opportunities for students to interact FtF with their peers or be able to watch presentations from a distance and angle where the words and images displayed are clearly visible and readable. In a number of ways, it can make desirable interactions possible, or create difficulties for them to occur. Since media and technology are, more and more, an integrated part to what people do in their daily lives, in the classroom, that could not be different. Different technologies were found in the observed classrooms, supporting FtF or online delivery of information. Despite the advancements of information and communication technologies, the technology found in the classrooms was not used to their full potential, and several other existing technologies were not yet introduced to these spaces. Overall, only one-way
319 delivery of information used the support of technology, and opportunities for interaction and collaboration at a distance were missed. That is, no examples were found of technology being used to support two-way narrative construction, hands-on practice or feedback on performance. Looking at what the observed students want in terms of formal learning environments, it was found that they desire high-tech classrooms of a hybrid sort: TELE functioning as gateways to the real world, where physical and virtual interaction mingles together, and where opportunities to construct meaning iteratively abound. By combining the affordances of the pedagogical design with the affordances of the space and technologies, it is possible to support multimodality and create new opportunities for meaningful learning to occur.
6.5.
Methodological Framework for Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
This
sub-section
describes
a
methodological
framework
for
bringing
multimodality and affordances to the design of TELE. The goal of the framework is to suggest a process for: capturing learning practice in-situ within learning environments with a range of uses of technology; analyzing the data in terms of multimodality – highlighting use of time, cycles of learning, use of spaces, higher/intermediate/lower level actions, use of media and technology, and multimodality-learning needs relationships; describing the analysis findings in terms of affordances – pedagogical, technical and spatial; and translating the affordances into criteria for designing TELE. Starting from the empirical observations of learning within environments with a range of
320 uses of technology, the seven steps or models that compose the framework are identified, clustered and described. Next, in order to support the design of TELE, these models are presented in procedural terms. The methodological framework includes the following models or conceptual structures: 1) observation in situ, 2) time and learning cycle analysis, 3) space and action analysis, 4) technology and interaction analysis, 5) multimodality and learning needs analysis, 6) affordances description, and 7) affordance-criteria translation. Figure 95 summarizes the methodological framework. Figures 96 to 102 sequentially present the first to seventh models within the conceptual framework, leading to the outcome of this observation-analysis-translation process.
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Learners and Instructors within the Context of Learning Environments with different Ranges of Use of Technology IN SITU OBSERVATION MODEL (Video Ethnographic Observation and Open-Ended Interview)
Video Clips and data logging from Classroom Interactions and Audio from Interviews
Video Clips and data logging from Classroom Interactions
Video Clips and data logging from Classroom Interactions
Video Clips and data logging from Classroom Interactions
TIME AND LEARNING CYCLE ANALYSIS MODEL
SPACE AND ACTION ANALYSIS MODEL
TECHNOLOGY AND MEDIA ANALYSIS MODEL
(Analysis Framework)
(Analysis Framework)
(Analysis Framework)
Clustered and Categorized Insights from the Four Different Analysis Models
Clustered Pedagogical, Technological and Spatial Affordances List and Description
MULTIMODALITY AND LEARNING ANALYSIS MODEL
AFFORDANCES DESCRIPTION MODEL
AFFORDANCES-CRITERIA TRANSLATION MODEL
(Multimodal Analysis Framework and Grounded Theory)
(Bottom-Up Clustering and Emergent Categories Rule, and Affordance Writing Rule)
(Implications-to-Design Translation Rule)
Clustered and Categorized Design Criteria List and Guidelines
OUTCOME (Design Recommendations)
Figure 95. Methodological Framework for Capturing Practice, Analyzing in Terms of Multimodality, Describing in Terms of Affordances, and Translating into Design Criteria
321 IN SITU OBSERVATION MODEL (Poggenpohl, 2000) Question Frames:
Research Approaches:
Testing Research Design:
Contextual Research:
Who (Audience, user) What (Classification) When (Time, context) Where (Location) Why (Reason, purpose) How (Process, method) Can (Possibility) Will (Probability, trend) Do (Performance, action) Which (Comparison)
Qualitative Quantitative Mixed Comparative
Adequacy of Data against research goals and questions
Data collection through various methods, such as in situ observation and open-ended interview
Research Procedures:
Refining Research Design and Protocols:
Replication:
Secondary Research Primary Research
Modifying procedures and perhaps re-testing
Replicating procedures across users
CONCEPTUALIZING RESEARCH
DETAILING RESEARCH PROCEDURES
(Defining research objectives and framing the problem/questions/hypotheses )
(Defining research strategy, methods, protocols and units of analysis)
RUNNING PILOT TEST
COLLECTING DATA
(Testing and refining research procedures)
(Through, for instance, video-ethnographic observation and follow up interview)
Figure 96. In Situ Observation Model
TIME AND LEARNING CYCLE ANALYSIS MODEL
Learning activities, teaching strategies and student response identification
LEARNING ACTIVITIES & RESPONSE (Logging observation data, focusing on listing learning activities, teaching strategies and student response)
Time analysis against teaching strategies
Time analysis against student response
Learning cycle balance analysis
INSTRUCTOR USE OF TIME
STUDENT USE OF TIME
LEARNING CYCLE BALANCE
(Including time information for every learning activity while logging observation data)
(Including time information for every student response while logging observation data)
(Clustering learning activity within cycles, checking against time and student response)
Figure 97. Time and Learning Cycle Analysis Model
SPACE AND ACTION ANALYSIS MODEL
Analysis of instructor movement across space throughout class time
Analysis of instructor higher/intermediate/lower level actions across space throughout class time
Analysis of student movement across space throughout class time
Analysis of student higher/intermediate/lower level actions across space throughout class time
INSTRUCTOR USE OF SPACE
INSTRUCTOR ACTIONS ACROSS SPACE
STUDENT USE OF SPACE
STUDENT ACTIONS ACROSS SPACE
(Logging observation data, focusing on sketching use of space)
(Logging observation data, focusing on listing major higher/intermediate/lower level actions in relation to use of space)
(Logging observation data, focusing on sketching use of space)
Logging observation data, focusing on listing major higher/intermediate/lower level actions in relation to use of space)
Figure 98. Space and Action Analysis Model
322 TECHNOLOGY AND INTERACTION ANALYSIS MODEL
Identification of instructor use of media, technology, objects and materials throughout class time
Analysis of student use of media, technology, objects and materials throughout class time
Analysis of instructor interactions with media, technology, objects and materials through-out class time
Analysis of student interactions with media, technology, objects and materials throughout class time
INSTRUCTOR USE OF MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, OBJECTS AND MATERIALS
STUDENT USE OF MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, OBJECTS AND MATERIALS
INSTRUCTOR HIGHER/INTERMEDIATE/LOWER LEVEL ACTIONS
STUDENT HIGHER/ /INTERMEDIATE/LOWER LEVEL ACTIONS
(Logging observation data, focusing on identifying instructor use of media, technology, objects and materials)
(Logging observation data, focusing on identifying student use of media, technology, objects and materials)
(Logging observation data, focusing on listing instructor interactions with identified media, technology, objects and materials)
(Logging observation data, focusing on listing student interactions with identified media, technology, objects and materials) (x)
Figure 99. Technology and Interaction Analysis Model
MULTIMODALITY AND LEARNING ANALYSIS MODEL
Variables: Time, Student Multimodality, Instructor and Context, Student Engagement Strategy.
Transcription of selected instances.
Transcription of selected instances.
Variables:
Variables:
Verbal Expressions.
Actor, Action, Verbal Communication, NonVerbal Communication, Space and Time.
CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS NOTATION SYSTEM
VERBAL COMMUNICATION NOTATION SYSTEM
(Logging data focusing on describing contextual information and selected best representative instances within different cycles)
(Transcribing selected instances in terms of verbal communication)
Transcription and analysis of interview.
MULTIMODAL COMMUNICATION NOTATION SYSTEM (Transcribing selected instances in terms of non-verbal communication)
Cross analysis. Variables:
Variables: Verbal Expressions.
INTERVIEW ANALYSIS SYSTEM (Transcribing interview and using Grounded-Theory, identification of meaning categories and clustering, focusing on identifying learning needs)
Multimodal Analysis clusters, and Interview Analysis clusters.
COMPARISON OF MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS AND INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS (Contrasting and clustering data from two sources)
Figure 100. Multimodality and Learning Analysis Model
Pictorial synthesis of selected instances.
SYNTHESIS OF MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS (Synthesize transcription information through image)
323 AFFORDANCES DESCRIPTION MODEL
Basic affordance description combined with principle description
Easy + Verb, or Verb + ability, or Verb + preposition + able + object /place/substance that affords
SIMPLIFIED MODEL
BASIC MODEL
Who/what Why/where Preposition By How By which means Affordance (relationship between properties and use)
DETAILED MODEL
Environment and tool or mediating artifact properties, possibilities for action, actual use, missed opportunities for action, and relationship propertyuse
RELATIONAL MODEL
Figure 101. Affordances Description Model
AFFORDANCE-CRITERIA TRANSLATION MODEL
Describing affordances
AFFORDANCE DESCRIPTION
Combining affordances and principles
AFFORDANCES AND PRINCIPLES
Translating affordances and principles to design criteria
DESIGN CRITERIA
Generating design recommendations or solutions from design criteria RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 102. Affordance-Criteria Translation Model
The in situ observation or first model includes the following features: research questions, research design, research methods and procedures. The time and learning cycle analysis or second model includes the following features: instructor and student use of time, learning activities, and learning cycle balance. The space and action analysis or third model includes the following features: instructor and student use of space, and instructor and student higher/intermediate/lower level actions. The technology and interaction analysis or fourth model includes the following features: instructor and student use of media, technology, objects and materials, and afforded interactions. The multimodality and learning needs analysis or fifth model includes the following features:
324 contextual
analysis,
verbal
communication,
multimodal
communication,
and
supported/unsupported learning needs. The affordances description or sixth model includes the following features: environment and tool, or mediating artifact, properties, possibilities for action, actual use, missed opportunities for action, and relationship property-use. And the affordance-criteria translation or seventh and last model includes the following features: describing affordances, combining affordances and principles, translating affordances and principles to design criteria, and generating solutions or design recommendations from design criteria.
325 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION
The goal of this dissertation has been the proposal of a methodological framework that could bring multimodality and affordances to design of TELE. The need for such framework is supported by the work of Boyle and Cook (2004), who affirm that empirical observations of learning are what is required in the evolution of new frameworks, tools and systems to support, amongst others, systems designers and developers as they envisage new innovative tools to support learning. Conole (2007) states that one of the current developments and issues around learning design is: “how can we gather and represent practice (and in particular innovative practice)?” The proposed methodological framework suggests a process for: capturing learning practice in situ within learning environments with a range of uses of technology; analyzing the data in terms of multimodality – highlighting use of time, cycles of learning, use of spaces, higher/intermediate/lower level actions, use of media and technology, and multimodality-learning needs relationships; describing the analysis findings in terms of affordances – pedagogical, technical and spatial; and translating the affordances into criteria for designing TELE. In the literature review, theories and methods that could inform the research design and analysis were sought, in order to help capture the learning practice in its rich multimodal expression within learning environments with different ranges of use of technology, and translate the findings in terms of affordances and design criteria that could guide the development of TELE. Focus was given in delineating a process through which learning practice could be captured and translated in ways that are informative to
326 design practice, and not just listing the affordances of the observed learning spaces with ranges of use of technology. Regarding the overall research design, the present research falls into the qualitative research category. The methods for data collection included: pilot study, exploratory semi-structured interviews, main and complementary video ethnography and follow-up interviews, and documentary analysis of archival material. The complementary video ethnography was added later in the research to expand the number of observed subjects. From traditional classrooms making use of technologies such as computers connected to multimedia projectors, to full online classrooms delivering classes through computer and learning management platform, it mainly looked at students and instructors within two graduate programs of an university, Computer Science and Design. Through the analysis process, models were proposed to examine experimental data and represent students and instructors: multimodal interactions, use of time and space, use of media and technology, and distribution of learning cycles (presentation or one-way delivery of information, discussion or two-way narrative guidance and construction, activity or hands-on practice and performance, and evaluation or feedback on performance). These models correspond to a major part of the proposed methodological framework, which, all together, includes seven steps: 1) in situ observation, 2) time and learning cycle analysis, 3) space and action analysis; 4) technology and interaction analysis, 5) multimodality and learning analysis, 6) affordances description, and 7) affordance-criteria translation. This section presents the research conclusions and discusses the findings. For this purpose, it was divided into six parts: 7.1) Summary and Discussion, 7.2) Revisiting the
327 Hypotheses and Research Questions, 7.3) Contributions of the Study, 7.4) Limitations of the Study, 7.5) Emerging Questions, and 7.6) Future Research. 7.1.
Summary and Discussion
Learning is a social process where meaning is constructed iteratively drawing on a multiplicity of communicative modes, such as facial expression, speech, gesture, gaze and writing to represent information, convey meaning and make sense of experiences. “The sequence of [embodied, multimodal] interactions of dialogue, action-feedback, adaptation and reflection [perceived and expressed not only through speech, but the entire body] allows students to be exposed to new ideas, to link these to enhancing their practice, to improve their practice and link this improved practice to further developed understanding, and to assure the quality of their understanding” (Laurillard, 2000, p.4). Through learners multiple modes of interaction and communication, different possibilities and limitations for action become available because each one forces them into making commitments about meaning, due to the affordances of each mode. And in the same way the human body affords certain actions and constrains others, the context where one is situated also plays an important role in defining the possibilities for actions at hand. Within learning environments, the space, technology and pedagogical design, together with the other multimodal interactants present at a time, help to structure the group of possibilities available for someone to construct meaning and learn. Within the classroom learning context: instructor, peers, learning activities, technologies and space are included. By means of the affordances of the pedagogical design, technology and space, the possibilities for meaning making and learning are structured together in ways
328 that are accessible to learners. Technologies have the potential to be used in a rich variety of ways to support learning within learning environments, and more and more, and in different ranges, they have become a presence within classrooms. However, examples of authentically innovative forms of learning that maximize the potential affordances that new technologies appear to offer are still rare. In reality, “most use of new technologies seems to offer more of the same, mirroring of existing practice in the new medium rather than exploiting new opportunities and creating new experiences” (Conole, 2007, p. 2). From the observation of classrooms making use of different ranges of technology, it was noted that despite the advancements of information and communication technologies, classrooms are far from being populated with state of the art technology, and from what is there, it is not used to the full potential. In contrast, students desire high-tech classrooms of a hybrid sort: TELE functioning as gateways to the real world, where physical and virtual interaction mingles together, and where opportunities to construct meaning iteratively abound. This dissertation asserted that classroom learning is constructed multimodally through the relationships of the learner with his or her context and its affordances for learning. By combining the affordances of the pedagogical design - which include affordances for interaction, collaboration and communication - with the affordances of the space and technologies, it is possible to support interactants multimodality and create new opportunities for meaningful learning to occur. In order to further present the findings from this research, this sub-section was further divided into four parts, which present the summary and discussion of what was found in the different groups of research protocols: 7.1.1) Summary and Discussion of
329 Main Findings from the Field Research, Main and Complementary Video-Ethnography Interviews, 7.1.2) Summary and Discussion of Main Findings from the Main VideoEthnography, 7.1.3)
Summary and Discussion of
Main Findings from
the
Complementary Video-Ethnography, and 7.1.4) Summary and Discussion of Main Findings from the Cross Analysis and Discussion. 7.1.1. Summary and Discussion of Main Findings from Field Research, Main and Complementary Video-Ethnography Interviews. Looking at the interview data from the field research, and main and complementary video-ethnographies, in terms of students purposes, desires, expectations, and perceptions of learning and learning environments, it was mainly found: 1) from the beliefs about learning category, that learning needs to be experiential, fun and related to real life, and that it should promote not only knowledge acquisition, but a change in the student‟s perspective; 2) from the memorable learning experiences category, that students need personal interactions, fun in learning, and learning through practice; 3) from the learning profile and style awareness category, that all the different sensorial modalities (visual verbal, visual imagistic, auditory oral, auditory aural, motor mechanic and motor kinesthetic) were present, and that pedagogical design needs to support all of them, provide clear goal orientation, and link theory and practice; 4) from the interaction and communication category, that FtF classes need to provide immediate feedback, opportunities for team work, and for asking questions at any time, and that online classes need to become more social, interactive, active and engaging; 5) from the pedagogical design category, that FtF classes need to be more than just listening to lecture, and include the four learning cycles, with sufficient time for each phase; 6) from the space and learning category, that classrooms should be
330 designed for multiple, complementary purposes, with, for instance, a small staged lecture area, a location for group discussion, and a few private student spots; 7) from the traditional versus online classrooms category, that FtF classes should, like online classes, support reviewability and time flexibility, providing real time connection to the world, and that online classes should, like FtF classes, support student commitment, increase in concentration, and learning path flexibility; 8) from the special instructors category, that instructors need to be charismatic, energetic, motivational, and passionate about knowledge, besides using approachable language; and 9) from the perceptions of the future of learning category, that learning environments need to be more personalized, interactive, experiential and contextual, bringing more real world inside. In this way, it appeared that students‟ expectation of classroom practice differed in a number of aspects from common practice, such as in regards to its link to the real world, which seemed, to many of them, to be distant from their experience. Together, their voices revealed patterns of purposes, desires, needs, abilities and preferred modes of interaction that informed pedagogical, spatial and technological design. For instance: regarding the need to support multiple sensorial preferences and the desire for a classroom where the interaction goes beyond the lecture-only format, towards multicyclic engagement. 7.1.2. Summary and Discussion of Main Findings from Main Video-Ethnography. Looking at the main video-ethnography observations, it was mainly found that: 1) in terms of use of time, learning cycles distribution and pedagogical design, 93% of the class time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information, 7% of the time was dedicated to two-way narrative guidance (not including narrative construction), no time
331 was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance, and no time was dedicated to feedback on performance – placing the learner mainly in a passive role; 2) in terms of use of space and higher/intermediate/lower level actions - a) teacher-student proxemics varied from social to virtual action within the FtF and online classrooms, b) studentstudent proxemics varied from intimate (without facial contact), to none, that is, to no student-student
interaction
within
the
FtF
and
online
classrooms,
c)
higher/intermediate/lower level actions did not vary, corresponding to mainly listening to the instructor‟s lecture and taking notes within the
FtF and online classrooms, d)
communication and collaboration did not vary, corresponding to unidirectional communication and lack of opportunities for collaboration amongst students within the FtF and online classrooms, e) use of space did not vary, corresponding to a contrast in terms of the possibilities for actions of instructors and students within the FtF and online classrooms, with the students usually confined to one sitting area and with the instructor moving fluidly within a large stage area, and f) educational view of the space did not vary, corresponding to student passive role of intake of information within FtF and online classrooms; 3) in terms of available media, materials, objects, modes and technology, instructors used video cameras, microphones, speakers, laptop computers, Power Point slides, multimedia projectors, TV monitors, document cameras, white boards, yellow pads, pen and markers, which supported amplification of speech, and representation of still image, graphs and written text, within FtF and online classrooms; and students either did not use technology or used computers and earphones, and often used paper and pen, supporting representation of written text, image, speech and movement; and 4) in terms of multimodality and learning needs, the presence of gaze,
332 handwriting, in-place body movement, body posture, mouse clicking and keyboard typing was found amongst students modes of representation, with poor support to speech and no support to whole-body movement, while, at the same time, there was a dominance of motor and visual sensorial preferences in students. In this way, consistent patterns were found in relation to, for instance, the needs to provide more opportunities for bi- and multi-directional communication within the FtF and online classrooms, and to support modes of representation often neglected in classroom practice, such as whole body movement. These would help expand students‟ opportunities for interaction and meaning construction, as well as shifting the educational view of the classroom to one of more active engagement of students. 7.1.3. Summary and Discussion of Main Findings from Complementary VideoEthnography. Looking at the complementary video-ethnography observations, it was mainly found that: 1) in terms of use of time, learning cycles distribution and pedagogical design, 73% of the class time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information, 10% of the time was dedicated to two-way narrative guidance (not including narrative construction), 10% of the time was dedicated to hands-on practice and performance, and 7% of the time was dedicated to feedback on performance – placing the learner on a more active role, in contrast to the Computer Science students, in the construction of meaning, where student-student interaction is relevant and where practice and feedback on performance
support
this
process;
2)
in
terms
of
use
of
space
and
higher/intermediate/lower level actions, a) teacher-student proxemics varied from social to public within the hands-on and lecture classrooms, b) student-student proxemics varied from intimate to public distance, with or without facial contact within the hands-on and
333 lecture classrooms, c) higher/intermediate/lower level actions varied from listening to the instructor‟s lecture, taking notes, prototyping, discussing, performing and listening to feedback, to mainly listening to the instructor and taking notes within the hands-on and lecture classrooms, d) communication and collaboration varied from opportunities for active construction of meaning and collaboration amongst students, to unidirectional communication and lack of opportunities for collaboration amongst students within the hands-on and lecture classrooms, e) use of space varied from balance to contrast in terms of the possibilities for actions of instructors and students within the hands-on and lecture classrooms, with the students either moving fluidly within the class space or confined to one sitting area, and f) educational view of the space did not vary, corresponding to student passive role of intake of information within the hands-on and lecture classrooms; 3) in terms of available media, materials, objects, modes and technology, instructors used video camera, laptop computers, Power Point slides, multimedia projectors, white board on wheels, and paper and pen, which supported representation of written text, sketches, still image, graphs, movement and sound, within hands-on and lecture classrooms, and students used laptop computers, paper and pen, supporting representation of image and text; and 4) in terms of multimodality and learning needs, the presence of gaze, handwriting, proxemics, whole-body movement, in-place body movement, body posture, material manipulation, gesture, doodling, mouse clicking, keyboard typing, speech, vocal characterizer (such as laughing) and facial expression was found in student modes of representation, with poor support to speech and no support to whole-body movement, while, at the same time, there was a dominance of motor and visual sensorial preferences in students.
334 In this way, this data set provided a rich example of the affordances of a more balanced multi-cyclic pedagogical environment to learning, and an important contrast to the previous data set. It informed patterns of behaviors and needs that are present in active spaces, which can help guide the design of TELE. 7.1.4. Summary and Discussion of Main Findings from Cross Analysis and Discussion. Looking at all the data together and examining the affordances of spaces, technology and pedagogical design against the students identified purposes, desires, needs, abilities and modes of interaction: most of the observed learning spaces were not supportive of student-student interaction, but only teacher-student interaction. Amongst the 26 observed learning spaces, mainly unidirectional classrooms were found, designed to support one-way delivery of information through instructor lecture, and with little flexibility to accommodate something different from that. Regarding the pedagogical design of the observed classes, an average of 85% of the time was dedicated to one-way delivery of information, accommodating mainly the auditory aural students, who were a minority, 34 out of 153, and the visual verbal and visual imagistic students, who, together, were the majority, adding to 58 out of 153. Overall, a need to transform the student experience into something more than just a lecture was identified. As Laurillard affirms (1993), a large lecture simply affords listening, while a small group also affords preparing to speak, which extends the possibilities for learning. The emphasis in only one learning cycle in most of the observed classrooms, using lecture as the main pedagogical approach, supported by slides or white board notes, was found inadequate to accommodate the variety of sensorial preferences and needs of the students. The opportunities for motor engagement were usually limited to in-place movement, making
335 the group of students with motor preferences, 54 out of 153, the least accommodated ones by the pedagogical design of the class. Instead of passive knowledge recipients, learners need to actively interact with the environment to construct meaning (Dewey, 1916). The observation of the students taking two different Design graduate classes in the same classroom, groups three and two, showed the greatest contrast in terms of pedagogical design, the first reducing the opportunities provided by the space for studentstudent FtF interaction and the second far extending the opportunities provided by the space, by creating, through pedagogical design, opportunities for hands-on activity, group discussion, and student presentation, besides instructor lecture and feedback on student performance. That suggested that pedagogical design can have a greater effect than spatial design, although spatial design can have a positive role in defining the possibilities for action within the classroom. In this way, it is asserted that through pedagogical design it is possible to transform a passive classroom into one where the students actively construct meaning, beyond the constraints created by the space. Regarding missed opportunities for action, on the side of both instructors and students, related to different types of affordances – pedagogical, spatial and technological – it was observed that a good number of opportunities used by some were not used by several others. For instance, a few, very few, number of students within group one or Computer Science traditional classrooms used the lecture as an opportunity to ask questions to the instructor and construct meaning iteratively. During interviews some of students who were always silent in the class expressed that they don‟t like to ask questions because they perceive that they interrupt the flow of the class, and that they would rather contact the instructor during office hours or discuss with their classmates
336 outside the class. Another example is the “l” shaped classroom used by groups 2 and 3 instructors in different ways, creating, in turn, very different pedagogical affordances – in all cases, used in different ways by the different individual students. In this way, there seems to be an interplay amongst variables such as sensorial preferences, goals, social and cultural differences, personal idiosyncrasies, perceptions of available affordances, and actual available affordances, resulting in missed opportunities for action. In other words, there will always be several courses of action within a determined environment, so that, affordances can only create opportunities or constraints for action, but obviously not guarantee that they will occur. Figures 103 and 104 present a summary of the opportunities for action, through either motor, visual or auditory engagement, that were created by the pedagogical approaches adopted by groups one, two, three, and four. Overall, a contrast was observed, opposing group two to all other groups in terms of superior opportunities for action and sensorial engagement within a broader set of learning activities and affordances for learning. Figure 105 presents a summary of the different communication codes, associated to different modes of representation of information, linked to related sensorial modalities and to sensorial modes of interaction that are supported by the correspondent code and mode. In this way, it points to certain possibilities for interaction and/or certain types of sensorial interaction that are associated to a particular code and mode. Tables 52, 53, 54 and 55 link four cycles of learning to the different codes and to sensorial modes of interaction, indicating what type of opportunities for action and sensorial engagement can be created within each cycle of learning – lecture or one-way
337 Summary Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Pedagogical
1) Mainly one-way
1) Mainly one-way delivery of
1) Mainly one-way
1) Mainly one-way
approach
delivery of information
information cycle of learning
delivery of information
delivery of information
cycle of learning
(lecture; writing on white
cycle of learning (lecture;
cycle of learning
(lecture; writing on
boards; and slide show).
and slide show).
(lecture; writing on
2) Two-way narrative
2) Two-way narrative
construction (questions and
construction (questions
answers).
and answers).
3) Hands-on practice and
3) Feedback (oral
performance (prototyping group
feedback on homework,
activity, discussion and
and questions and
presentation)
answers).
white boards; and slide show). 2) Two-way narrative
white boards; and slide show).
construction (questions and answers).
4) Feedback (oral feedback on presentation, and questions and answers).
Figure 103. Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms, Pedagogical Approach
Summary Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Opportunities for
Mainly in-place,
Enactment, material
Mainly in-place,
Mouse clicking and
motor
individual body
manipulation, handwriting,
individual body
desktop or laptop
movement, such as leg
gesture, body posture, facial
movement, such as leg
computer keyboard
shaking, handwriting,
expression, proxemics,
shaking, handwriting,
typing, besides other in-
mouse clicking and laptop
mouse clicking and laptop
mouse clicking and
place movements, such
keyboard typing.
keyboard typing.
laptop keyboard typing.
as leg shaking and
Opportunities for
Mainly listening to
Listening to lecture, student
Mainly listening to
Mainly listening to
auditory
lecture, and maybe asking
presentation, and engaging
lecture, and maybe
lecture through the
a few questions.
verbally in group discussion.
asking a few questions.
earphones.
Opportunities for
Watching slide show and
Watching live sketching and
Watching slide show,
Watching, through the
visual
yellow pad or white board
notes, both images and text.
mainly evocative
computer screen, slide
notes, mainly text.
Watching group activity and
images and text.
show and yellow pad or
engagement
handwriting.
engagement
engagement
group presentations.
white board notes, mainly text.
Figure 104. Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 Traditional and Online Classrooms, Opportunities for Motor, Auditory and Visual Engagement
338 CODES
MODES OF REPRESENTATION
SENSORIAL MODALITIES
SENSORIAL MODES OF INTERACTION
Spoken Language Vocalics
Speech or verbal expression.
Auditory Oral (Output) Auditory Aural (Input)
Verbal Interaction
Vocal cue (accent, loudness, cadence, nasality and tone); Vocal charactizer (laughing, crying, and yawning); Vocal qualifier (volume, pitch, rhythm and tempo); Vocal segregate (sounds such as mmmm and uh-huh); Vocal rate (tempo and speed). Physical Movement; Hand/arm gesture; Facial expression; Posture; Gait.
Auditory Oral (Output) Auditory Aural (Input)
Verbal Interaction
Motor Mechanic (Output) Motor Kinesthetic (Output) Visual Imagistic (Input) Motor Mechanic (Output) Motor Kinesthetic (Output) Visual Imagistic (Input) Motor Mechanic (Output) Motor Kinesthetic (Output) Visual Imagistic (Input) Motor Mechanic (Output) Motor Kinesthetic (Output)
Motor/visual interaction
Visual Imagistic (Input)
Visual interaction
Motor Mechanic (Output) Visual Imagistic (Input/Output) Visual Verbal (Input/Output) Motor Mechanic (Output) Motor Kinesthetic (Output) Auditory Oral (Output) Visual Verbal (Subtitles Output) Visual Imagistic (Input/Output) Auditory Aural (Input) Motor Mechanic (Input) Visual Imagistic (Input)
Motor/visual interaction
Kinesics Oculesics Proxemics
Eye contact; Gaze; Direct eye contact (looking into person‟s eyes); Indirect eye contact (fixing gaze on person‟s neck, chest). Use of space; Location; Interpersonal distance; Territoriality; Other spacing relations.
Haptics
Frequency of skin contact; Intensity of touch; Type of touch.
Physical Appearance
Hairstyle; Clothing; Cosmetics; Jewelry; Body shape; Appearance enhancements (body piercings, tattoos). Handwriting; Typography; Symbols; Imagery (drawing, painting, photograph, diagrams, tables).
Graphics Motion Graphics
Film (silent, talkies, monochromatic, polychromatic); Animation (2D, 3D).
Artifacts
Possessions (Automobiles, Furniture, Rugs, Objects, Materials, Media, Art, Pets); Other possessions. Punctuality; Lateness; Monochronemics (doing one thing at a time); Polychronemics (doing several things at the same time, or multiple conversations); Amount of time spent with another person; Waiting time. Coordination of one person's nonverbal cues with another (such as mirroring, mimicry, behavioral meshing). Body Smells; Perfumes; Other smells. - Context; - Room size; - Room color; - Layout; - Lighting; - Accessibility; - Location.
Chronemics
Synchrony Olfactics Environment
Motor/visual interaction
Motor/visual interaction
Motor interaction
Motor/visual/auditory interaction
Motor/visual interaction
Motor Kinesthetic (Output) Visual Imagistic (Input)
Motor/visual interaction
Motor Mechanic (Output) Motor Kinesthetic (Output) Visual Imagistic (Input) Olfactory (Input/Output) Motor Kinesthetic (Input) Visual Imagistic (Input)
Motor/visual interaction
Olfactory interaction Motor/visual interaction
Figure 105. Codes and Modes of Representation and Relation with Sensorial Modalities and Sensorial Modes of Interaction
delivery of information, discussion or two-way narrative guidance and construction, activity or hands-on practice, and evaluation or feedback on performance.
339 Figures 106 and 107 summarize types of knowledge covered in the observed classes, learning cycles, pedagogical approaches, modes of representation used by students, instructors use of media and technology, spatial categories, and supported sensorial modalities, opposing Computer Science classrooms or groups 1 and 4, and Design classrooms or groups 2 and 3. It points to opportunities that were available to students, as well as identifies the absent ones.
Table 52 One-Way Delivery of Information Cycle of Learning, Codes and Relation with Sensorial Modes of Interaction CYCLE OF
CODES
INTERACTION
One-way delivery
Spoken Language
Verbal Interaction
of information
Vocalics
Visual interaction
Kinesics
Motor/visual interaction
Oculesics
Motor/visual/auditory interaction
Proxemics
Olfactory interaction
LEARNING
Physical Appearance Graphics Motion Graphics Artifacts Chronemics Synchrony Olfactics Environment
340
Table 53 Two-Way Narrative Construction Cycle of Learning, Codes and Relation with Sensorial Modes of Interaction CYCLE OF
CODES
INTERACTION
Two-way narrative
Spoken Language
Verbal interaction
construction
Vocalics
Visual interaction
Kinesics
Motor interaction
Oculesics
Motor/visual interaction
Proxemics
Motor/visual/auditory interaction
Haptics
Olfactory interaction
LEARNING
Physical Appearance Graphics Motion Graphics Artifacts Chronemics Synchrony Olfactics Environment
341 Table 54 Hands-On Practice Cycle of Learning, Codes and Relation with Sensorial Modes of Interaction CYCLE OF
CODES
INTERACTION
Spoken Language
Verbal interaction
Vocalics
Visual interaction
Kinesics
Motor interaction
Oculesics
Motor/visual interaction
Proxemics
Motor/visual/auditory interaction
Haptics
Olfactory interaction
LEARNING Hands-on practice
Physical Appearance Graphics Motion Graphics Artifacts Chronemics Synchrony Olfactics Environment
342 Table 55 Feedback on Performance Cycle of Learning, Codes and Relation with Sensorial Modes of Interaction CYCLE OF
CODES
INTERACTION
Feedback on
Spoken Language
Verbal interaction
performance
Vocalics
Visual interaction
Kinesics
Motor interaction
Oculesics
Motor/visual interaction
Proxemics
Motor/visual/auditory interaction
Haptics
Olfactory interaction
LEARNING
Physical Appearance Graphics Motion Graphics Artifacts Chronemics Synchrony Olfactics Environment
343 SUBJECT TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
LEARNING CYCLES
Facts Concepts Processes Procedures Principles One-way
Teacher-student
Computer Science X X X
Design
X X
X X X X X X X X X X
Student-student
Two-way
Teacher-student
X
Student-student
Hands-On
Activity Performance
Feedback
Immediate Delayed
PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH
Face-to-Face Lecture Online Lecture White boards Yellow pad Verbal Q. & A. Group Activity Group Presentation Individual Presentation Demonstration FtF Feedback on Presentation. Homework FtF Feedback on Homework
X X X X X X
X
X
X X X
X X X X X X X X
Figure 106. Computer Science and Design Classroom Analysis – Types of Knowledge, Learning Cycles and Pedagogical Approach
344 SUBJECT STUDENT MODES OF REPRESENTATION
INSTRUCTOR MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY
SPACE CATEGORY
SUPPORTED SENSORIAL MODALITIES
Gaze Eye-Contact Facial Expression Gesture Material Manipulation Handwriting Typing Mouse Clicking Haptics In-place Body Movement Whole Body Movement Body Posture Speech Vocal Characterizer Vocal Cue Vocal Rate Vocal Qualifier Microphones Speakers Computer Software Multimedia projector TV monitors Video camera Document camera Auditorium Space Unidirectional classroom “l” shaped classroom Computer lab Individual public space Small group space Medium/large group Online learning space Visual Verbal Imagistic Auditory Aural Oral Motor Kinesthetic Mechanic
Computer Science X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Design X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X
X X
X X X X X (x) (x) X
X X X X X X
Figure 107. Computer Science and Design Classroom Analysis – Students Modes of Representation, Instructor Technology, Space Category and Supported Modalities
345 7.2.
Revisiting the Hypotheses and Research Questions
This research hypothesized that: 1) within the classroom context, pedagogical design, spatial design and technological design help support learning, and 2) the affordances of technology are not fully utilized in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. In reference to the first hypothesis, it was observed that pedagogical design, spatial design and technological design have a role in supporting learning. In this regard, the research suggests that pedagogical design can have a greater effect than spatial design on the students‟ interaction, transforming the same classroom into passive or active space for meaning construction. In relation to the second hypothesis, a gap was observed between what is perceived as afforded (or what students perceive they can do) and what is actually acted upon (or what students did). Variables that were important in the occurrence of this gap include personality types and sensorial modality preferences (aspects of learning styles), multimodality preferences, goals, perceptions of available affordances (or perceptions of what is possible to do), and affordances that were actually available (or what was possible to do in actuality). This research sought to answer five research questions. 1) What are the learners‟ purposes, unacknowledged needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction within Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments? Regarding the first question, the research revealed that students want opportunities for more than just listening to a lecture. They seek opportunities for social interaction, being active and engaged, interacting with the instructor and other students, having immediate feedback, collaborating in teams, exploring materials, seeing examples, and asking questions.
346 2) How are those purposes, needs, abilities and multiple modes of interaction accommodated or not within Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments? In regard to the second question, the research revealed that students‟ sensorial modality preferences were not equally accommodated in the observed classrooms. Overall, visual verbal and visual imagistic students were best accommodated, followed by auditory aural learners. With the exception of the Design hands-on workshop, the classes were least supportive to the motor kinesthetic and auditory oral modalities. 3) What are the existent perceptible and acted upon affordances of TechnologyEnhanced Learning Environments for communication and learning? In reference to the third question, the research revealed that students‟ perceptions were attached to the pedagogical design of their classes and not technology or space per se. Online students, for instance, did not use the Internet technology to communicate with the instructor and ask questions either through email or chat. During lecture classes, very few students asked questions. 4) How can the perceptible affordances be expanded to match learners‟ needs, and how can they become more easily acted-upon? Regarding the fourth question, the research revealed that through pedagogical design, it is possible not only to create richer opportunities for learning, but also make those opportunities perceptible to the students. It is proposed that the technological and spatial design can help make perceptible affordances more easily acted upon. 5) What well known and state-of-the-art technologies can add learning or communicational value to learning environments? In relation to the fifth question, a limitation of this study was that it was not possible to look at the state-of-the-art
347 technology. From the research that was carried out, it is proposed that a hybrid of traditional and online classrooms, functioning as gateways to the real world and bringing together physical and virtual interaction, can enrich the affordances for learning. Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, which are a hybrid of traditional and online classrooms, functioning as gateways to the real world and bringing together physical and virtual interaction, can combine opportunities for students to take class live or through video conference technology, accessible globally and from mobile platforms. In the live, FtF classrooms, hardware and software such as AccessGrid© or Iocom (Judson, 2002; Thorson, Leigh, Maajid, Par1, Nayak, Salva, and Berry, 2002; inSORS Integrated Communications, 2007) can support distributed meetings and collaborative working sessions through multipoint video conference, with audio, video, whiteboard, screen sharing and application sharing. Another example is StorySpace (Watson, Kim, McEneany, Moher, Hindo, Gomez and Fransen, 2004), a new groupware application that supports digital collaboration and parallel user input through a tangible user interface. Using radio frequency identification technology to automatically track tokens, or physical embodiments of virtual operations, StorySpace synchronizes activity in the real world with what users see in the digital world. Online communication management can be supported, for instance, by Floor Control Protocol (Dommel and Garcia-Luna-Aceves, 1997). One more example is Thunder Virtual Flip Chart System (Polyvision, 2006), which enables individuals and teams to share data in any format, brainstorm and ideate together regardless of location or time zone. Adaptive systems such as MultiLezi, an Adaptive Multichannel Learning Environment (Barbieri, Bianchi, Bruna, Mainetti, and Sbattella, 2005) can bring a more personalized experience to students, providing multi-
348 channel and multimodal access to information, in combination with user profiling and adaptive navigation structures. Other sample technologies are: OPAL (Conlan, Wade, Bruen, and Gargan, 2002), which delivers content personalized to the learner‟s cognitive and presentation learning preferences, OLO (Rodriguez, Chen, Shi and Shang, 2002), and KOD (Karagiannidis, Sampson and Cardinali, 2001). There are thousands of others, but in depth research regarding this question is beyond the scope of the present research.
7.3.
Contributions of the Study
Overall, four types of contributions result from this study: methodological, theoretically informed conceptual, design domain and pedagogy domain contributions. Figures 108 and 109 present them diagrammatically. The methodological contribution of the study refers to the methodological framework for bringing multimodality and affordances to design of TELE. Considered the major contribution, it is composed of seven models of observation, analysis and translation, which were built through this research process of observation, analysis and synthesis, guided by the research questions. These models, described on section 6.5, are: 1) observation in situ, 2) time and learning cycle analysis, 3) space and action analysis, 4) technology and interaction analysis, 5) multimodality and learning needs analysis, 6) affordances description, and 7) affordance-criteria translation. This methodological framework focused on the process of capturing learning practice in situ within learning environments with a range of uses of technology; analyzing the data in terms of multimodality – highlighting use of time, cycles of learning, use of spaces, higher/intermediate/lower level actions, use of media and
349 technology, and multimodality-learning needs relationships; describing the analysis findings in terms of affordances; and translating the affordances into criteria for designing TELE. Within the framework, the multimodal analysis model, for instance, allows moving from the macro-analysis, through the identification of patterns of use of time and space, to increasing levels of refinement in the analysis, through the identification and examination of the higher, intermediate and lower level actions, and the heuristic units of communication, including codes and modes. The strategy of analysis in the proposed model uses the macro level phase to identify the major interaction units that need to be explored in the micro level analysis, instead of analyzing all the interaction units. In this way, it makes the analysis more time efficient and adaptable to the designer‟s goals within a research project. At the end, the framework seeks to translate the collected data, which captures the learning practice in its rich multimodal expression within learning environments with different ranges of use of technology, to a format that is useful to design practice and that can help guide the development of TELE. The theoretically informed conceptual contributions include the affordances translation models, presented on section 6.1, which suggest different rules for writing affordances where, for instance, the relationships between who/what, where, and how are described in relation to the affordance. Another theoretically informed conceptual contribution refers to the integration of multimodality and affordances for research and design, as demonstrated in the analysis and cross analysis chapters, and described in the methodological framework for designing TELE. The contribution to the domain of Design relates to the set of guidelines, in the form of principles, for designing TELE. These principles, presented on section 6.3,
350 SUMMARY THESIS CONTRIBUTIONS Methodological
Contributions
Framework for bringing multimodality 11). and affordances for designing TELE (See figures 94 to 101).
Multimodal analysis framework (See figures 4 to
Theoretically Informed Conceptual Contributions Model for describing affordances See figure 95)
Integration of multimodality and affordances for research and design. Affordances
Multimodality Research & Design
Figure 108. Summary Thesis Contributions 1
correspond to: Multi-Cyclic Pedagogic Strategy, Multiple Modes of Interaction, Managed Communication, Expanded Social Relationships, Supported Emotional Expression, Supportive Technologies, Multi-Functional Spaces, Continuous Teacher Training, and Oriented Learners. The contributions to the domain of Pedagogy are related to the insights regarding affordances of pedagogical design and the consequent implications for planning practice. In particular, the aspects associated to the research findings, grouped into: Use of Time, Learning Cycles & Pedagogical Design. But also, found in association to the research findings, grouped into: Use of Space, Actions & Spatial Design; Use of Technology,
351 Interactions & Technological Design; Multimodality & Learning; and Purposes, Desires, Perceptions & Needs. These were extensively explored in the analysis and cross-analysis chapters.
SUMMARY THESIS CONTRIBUTIONS Contribution
to the Domain of Design
Set of guidelines, in the form of principles, for designing TELE (See section 6.3). Principles for TELE: Multi-Cyclic Pedagogic Strategy, Multiple Modes of Interaction, Managed Communication, Expanded Social Relationships, Supported Emotional Expression, Supportive Technologies, Multi-Functional Spaces, Continuous Teacher Training, and Oriented Learners.
Contribution to the Domain of Pedagogy Groups of insights regarding affordances for pedagogical design and consequent implications for planning practice (See chapters 4 and 5). Research findings: Use of Time; Learning Cycles & Pedagogical Design; Use of Space, Actions & Spatial Design; Use of Technology, Interactions & Technological Design; Multimodality & Learning; and Purposes, Desires, Perceptions & Needs.
Figure 109. Summary Thesis Contributions 2
7.4.
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations in the study. Some of them refer to the number of subjects within each observed group, and the observation of each subject during only one class period, instead of an observation of the same student across classes and across learning environments. That would have allowed answering the research questions in even more depth. Another limitation refers to the range of learning environments in terms
352 of use of technology, especially innovative use. That could have helped inform learning and design practices regarding extended possibilities for learning due to technology. Other limitations refer to the observation of a small set of academic subjects. While the study of a larger set making use of various pedagogical designs, would allow a more comprehensive mapping of affordances for learning. In addition, the limited study of specific and more innovative technologies and their affordances for learning limited the answer of the fifth research question. The qualitative analysis means that the results are not generalizable. A mixed-method approach to research would, perhaps, have allowed making generalizations, for example, regarding the necessary affordances of TELE and guide future developments.
7.5.
Emerging Questions
Some of the emerging questions regarding pedagogical, spatial and technological design are: What are the affordances for learning from different pedagogical approaches? What are the desirable affordances for FtF and online learning and how they can be translated into specific learning activities? What are the affordances of different technologies for learning? What are the affordances of different spaces for learning? How could technological and spatial affordances help support specific learning activities? How could technological and spatial affordances help support all four different learning cycles?
7.6.
Future Research
353 The research has shown that there are several areas and opportunities for future inquiry and design investigation that promise to advance the state of the art in the design of TELE. Future research can evaluate, validate and refine the proposed methodological framework, as well as provide a map of affordances – pedagogical, technological and spatial – that can be useful to guide designers and developers of both TELE and educational technologies. Subsequently, the design of iterative prototypes and of cutting edge technologies and environments responding to the list of affordances should be conducted. Before that, more research is necessary regarding the benefits and constraints brought by pedagogical, technological and spatial affordances to learning.
354
APPENDIX A FIELD RESEARCH OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEW DATA AND ANALYSIS
355 The data presented in Appendix A was selectively chosen from a large data set. The rule for selection was to represent the variety of data found. Further inquiry should be directed to the Illinois Institute of Technology.
356 Table A.1 Students F1 to F6 Video Ethnography Open-Ended Interview Data Analysis TRADITIONAL VS. ONLINE LEARNING
ID INDIVIDUAL PROFILE
F1 Male, graduate (MS Technical Communication, BS Computer Science), Bulgaria, 25 years old
F2 Female, graduate (PhD in Design, MS in Instructional Design, BS in Design), South Korea, 35 years old
VISUAL REPRESENTATION
QUESTION
Q01) What are some of the things you do everyday that you consider be related to learning?
ANSWER
I learn various academic knowledge in this school. I learn various common knowledge through mass communication I think that those are learning Many things are learned by colleagues or teachers or other people surrounding me.
KEYWORDS
My main learning activity is working on the projects assigned to for my classes. And when I start working for a project I review the project description if there is any assignment checklists or examples and I use that to formulate a strategy for working on my assignment or project then identify possible topics in the textbook for review and if needed I read some of those sections or chapters before start working on my assignment. strategy, project
MAIN QUOTES
"My main learning activity is working on the projects"
INSIGHTS
Focus on understanding the structure. After that the application becomes easier. Deductive thinker. Hands On learner. Goal oriented. Learning is related to formal education essentially. 5 pre-activities. Strategic organization. Very focused, practical, goal-oriented.
" … academic … [and] common knowledge … I think that those are learning" Acknowledges formal and informal types of learning.
GIST
Learning profile: Deductive, global, sequential, concrete, visual and motor; Learning preferences: Clear structure, Hands-on, Visual interaction with technology and materials. Need for oral-motor communicative activity to learn
RELATIONS ANALYSIS QUESTION
ANSWER
KEYWORDS MAIN QUOTES INSIGHTS
GIST RELATIONS ANALYSIS
academic, common knowledge
Learning profile: Visual, concrete, field dependent; Learning preferences: Unstructured, Visual interaction with people. Need for oral-visual imagistic communicative activity to learn
Learning takes place through communication and doing Learning takes place through communication and visual activities and projects observation Q02) Tell me your most memorable and your worst learning experiences.
Most memorable learning experience - the feedback I receive from fellow students and teachers while presenting a big project or assignment. So it is sort of feedback or questions I receive, are pretty memorable. Worst learning experience computer science course. About 80% of the grade was a programming project and was really not well designed and thought of because the concepts taught in the class had to do with 20% of the work and the other 80% had to do with other stuff not covered in class. The course had no pre-requisite or specifications that such kind of knowledge would be needed. feedback, project "[My] most memorable learning experience [is] the feedback I receive from my fellow students" Best: Feedback and questions, reflection on practice; Worst: Poor pedagogical organization of course, Unclear learning objectives, Unrelated assessment
When I was a Master student I experienced the benefit of discussion The benefit of learning through discussion Before that mostly I have never experienced such kind of unstructured learning specially in Korea I like the open culture in learning something In university the department of educational technology was very free less pressure of teachers Most Korean people have bad experiences in high school education focusing on to enter the university very hard time for most Korean students in the age.
Learning needs: Structure peer assessment vs. instructor assessment; organization vs. disorganization best learning experience relates to performance approval and optimal improvement, seeking triumph, with clear goal and structure
Learning needs: Open-structure equality vs. rigidity
benefit, discussion, experience "I like the open culture in learning"; "I experienced the benefit of discussion" Best: Discussion based, Open (for her = unstructured); Worst: Pressure, Stress, Rigidity, Focus on Assessment results and not on learning
best learning experience relates to hierarchy-free conversations
357 QUESTION
Q03) Describe your favorite teacher of all times and how were the classes he or she used to teach.
ANSWER
[...] a literature teacher who had a very unique approach in teaching literature in that she allowed students to respond to essay contests not necessarily related directly to the book or poem we were discussing regarding that assignment so she had a very open approach and she would let you experiment and other things without having to be confined by specific format requirements particular genre requirements. [...] Doctor T's [...] his classes are organized is the fact that for the most of the classes I have taken there is a pretty clear assignment sequence [...] a good set of assignments which build on each other which relate to the class material and which are described clearly enough so you understand what is supposed to be done and not restrictive enough to limit your choices to the ones in the textbook. unique, confined, build "had a very unique approach in teaching"; "had a very open approach and she would let you experiment" Best teacher: Let‟s students experiment, uses an open approach, moves from parts to whole, and from clear structure or rule to application or example.
KEYWORDS MAIN QUOTES INSIGHTS
GIST RELATIONS ANALYSIS QUESTION
ANSWER
KEYWORDS INSIGHTS
GIST
RELATIONS ANALYSIS QUESTION
ANSWER
KEYWORDS MAIN QUOTES INSIGHTS
GIST RELATIONS ANALYSIS
Best: When I was Master degree student Open to opinions, rich expertise, confidence on knowledge. Not only openminded is sufficient Leaded to meaningful learning experience Discussion seminar Round table in center with students around
roundtable, open "Open to opinions, rich expertise, confidence on knowledge", "Leaded to meaningful learning experience" Best teacher: Is knowledgeable in terms of content and pedagogy, and leads open discussions.
Preferred teaching strategy: Deductive reasoning Preferred teaching strategy: Discussion open vs restrictive approach; experimentation or tinkering vs. expertise vs amateurism; discussion or two-way narrative fixed outcomes construction vs lecture or one-way narrative construction teacher as an organizer teacher as an expert Q04) Can you describe the most pleasant classroom setting that you ever had?
I like it to be quiet but also on a number of occasions I listen to some calm music I definitively cannot do without Internet connection during any kind of learning so for me Internet access and my computer are very important part of my learning environment I will if I use pen and paper it is only for scratch scratching and drawing not for any real work and I am so used to writing on and designing on the computer that I don‟t think I can ever finish up more than one page document by hand. calm music, Internet, scratching Classroom: Technology based, Music background; Pedagogical Affordances: Hands On, Learning by doing, online interaction, viewing information.
Round/square table in center with students around
center, around Classroom : Round table with students around; Pedagogical Affordances: Discussion oriented.
Context: Quiet, computer and Internet; Pedagogical Context: Classroom, round table; Pedagogical Affordances: Affordances: Concentration, multi-tasking, mediated Face-to-face interaction, discussion, decision making interaction functionality, relaxation interaction learning takes place in goal oriented, quiet technological learning takes place around round tables atmospheres Q05) What part of your learning took place in traditional or online settings and why?
Most of my formal education High school College both undergraduate and graduate level were done in traditional classroom setting Now the reason for that is back in High school I did not even have a choice [...] For self-education [...] I have taken a nr of online classes more or less training materials [...] not class because they were not for a certification exam [...] They were not classes because you didn't get a grade on them [...] (If an option) I really liked the convenience of a course that is not on a certain place or time because on a nr of occasions I find my schedule way too busy to keep up with the assignments [...] For me I don't think I benefit or use classroom interaction at its best So I think I would be able to do just as well interacting with the materials [...] on my own time Certainly I would like to try more [...] I would certainly prefer online learning. convenience "I really liked the convenience " Traditional: Most, No other option, Don't take advantage of interaction; Online: Training materials, Convenient, time and location. Online vs. traditional preference: Online more convenient on demand delivery online learning is more convenient
Traditional up to high school Two online classes during Master's degree No option before I guess my university requested professors to open online course to introduce educational technology to students Sometimes it was beneficial Sometimes it was worst than traditional type of learning If technology was available when I was young I would choose traditional In Master's degree there was no choice, I needed to take the classes and the teacher chose the method
sometimes, beneficial, worst "Sometimes it was beneficial Sometimes it was worst " Traditional: Most Preference Online: Had to, Not a choice.
Online vs. traditional preference: Traditional consistent experience online learning is inconsistent
358 QUESTION
Q06) Can you describe how were your online-classes and what you like or not about them.
ANSWER
More training No grading on exercises Online communication
KEYWORDS MAIN QUOTES INSIGHTS
training “More training” Positive Online: Time and space flexibility Negative Online: None
GIST RELATIONS ANALYSIS
Perception of online class: Training focused customizable delivery online education can meet different needs and be offered in different genres Q07) How do you think you learn best?
QUESTION
ANSWER
KEYWORDS MAIN QUOTES INSIGHTS GIST RELATIONS ANALYSIS QUESTION
ANSWER
KEYWORDS MAIN QUOTES INSIGHTS GIST RELATIONS ANALYSIS QUESTION
ANSWER
KEYWORDS MAIN QUOTES
The class consisted of both online and traditional - Mixed approach. What I felt about discussion in online pace was usually not useful specially for making a decision. Students tend to express their opinions online but it was to hard to collect that and organize the opinions, judge which opinion should have priority or not. The difference from that and real life discussions in decision making face to face discussion is more time efficient because we are sitting together. Writing something together while other students are looking at other students opinions. I think sitting together is the most crucial issue I have given my opinion in the online discussion and then I have to wait for the action. And then someone replies. Collecting opinions is very time consuming. In decision making students tended to be more polite in online communication. No body wants to be blamed. Other students don't like to have their opinions neglected. Male and female students. I did not know all the students I was interacting with. online pace, not useful, decision making, wait “discussion in online pace was usually not useful” Positive Online: Interaction, discussion Negative Online: Difficult communication and decision making Difficult collaboration and socialization Perception of online class: Difficult communication facilitating decision making process online education needs to facilitate the decision making process
Doing a project and if I were to read a specific information I would rather have a purpose in mind.
My preference is classroom learning than online learning Open atmosphere and powerful leading professor Enough teaching experience and expertise in the content Students are also important Active students Learning materials too which depends on learning content project, purpose open atmosphere “Doing a project”, “have a purpose in mind” “Open atmosphere and powerful leading professor” Hands on From rules to examples Teacher-centered Self awareness (learning style): Some self understanding Self awareness (learning style): Some self understanding regarding learning preferences regarding learning preferences purposeful tasks type of environment Projects favor learning Opportunities for interaction favor learning Q08) What is your social interaction with other students within traditional and online classrooms and how important that is for you and for your learning experience? I don‟t take fully advantage of classroom interaction […] The interaction I benefit the most […] projects presentation assignment evaluation feedback Email or discussion boards and similar tools are more than sufficient for my interaction requirements
In classroom Face to face communication In online courses to become closer is more important but we cannot see each other If I don‟t know person A well I think I cannot totally understand his/her opinion or nuance of opinion Why is he/she speaking I think that learning is based on person to person relationship project, presentation see, communication "I benefit the most […] projects presentation" "In online courses to become closer is more important but we cannot see each other" Little interaction Online needs to provide for understanding others more clearly Bio Interaction cues Value of social interaction for learning: Small Value of social interaction for learning: Big purposeful tasks type of environment social interaction with other students is not always necessary social interaction with other students is highly necessary, and also to be able to see each other Q09) In which ways are your learning activities related or not to your entertainment/fun activities? What is fun?
I am not sure I can find a direct connection between learning and fun activities except that the setting sometimes is the same. My fun activities, if I have time and money: cinema, theater, concerts, travel, social interaction with friends. setting, theater, travel, friends “I am not sure I can find a direct connection between learning and fun activities”, “My fun activities [are] ... cinema theater concerts travel social interaction with friends”.
Fun: Chatting with a friend watching TV Eating something Sometimes these activities can be related to learning. I could learn through informative programs on TV. Chatting with a friend can also be a source of learning informally. friend, eating, informally “Chatting with a friend watching TV Eating something Sometimes these activities can be related to learn”.
359 INSIGHTS GIST RELATIONS ANALYSIS QUESTION
ANSWER
ANSWER
KEYWORDS MAIN QUOTES
INSIGHTS GIST RELATIONS ANALYSIS
Fun: Aesthetic relaxing social experience Fun: interacting with friends, Social experience Learning and fun are not related Informal learning and fun might be related separate, dissociate groups of activities with distinct goals activities that can be related Learning needs to be an aesthetical, relaxing, social activity Learning is fun when associated to social activities to be fun Q10) Tell me a futuristic story about how learning will take place (circumstances, environment, tech, groupings).
A new way to learn […]. The fun in learning would be seeing the result or the application of what I am learning. I would not have that as entertainment, but this is the satisfaction I get from learning. So I would certainly be thinking around the lines of problem-based learning where the course is designed in the form of problems or assignments to be completed. As little words as possible. Problems that I can relate to and need to solve in my future. Entertainment-wise, some sort of real world simulation is fun. I certainly appreciate computer games that incorporate some sort of learning. I do think that more and more learning will take place at users on environment at their own pace and it will be more [...] on-demand learning [...]. The whole college format is strange to some people [...] motivation is really low [...] some ot the subjects they have to take have nothing to do with what they want to do. Another possibility is that GPA would probably go away because they are a strange way to evaluate work and effort. Learning is only motivated by a grade and the materials forgotten. More self-paced, learnerdriven education, on-demand. The cost of education should probably go down and be more accessible to more people. result, satisfaction, problem-based, computer games, ondemand, motivation, evaluate "the fun in learning would be seeing the result or the application of what I am learning", " this is the satisfaction I get from learning", "around the lines of problem-based learning", "real world simulation is fun", "I certainly appreciate computer games that incorporate some sort of learning", "I do think that more and more learning will take place at users own environment at their own pace", "The whole college format is strange to some people [...] motivation is really low [...] some ot the subjects they have to take have nothing to do with what they want to do", "GPA ... are a strange way to evaluate work and effort", "Learning is only motivated by a grade and the materials". Future: Technology, Learning, Entertainment, ProblemSolving, Game, Home learning. Future expectations: Home learning lludic activities, problem-solving learning, paced learning, effort assessment Online learning should take place playfully, supported by technology capable of simulating real world problems, at each learner's pace, on demand, assessing the learner's effort and leading to closure or the visualization of the learning outcome.
I said I prefer face to face learning But I think in the future more online or technology based will increase Online courses Video-conferencing learning The students will be at home Consequences maybe students person to person communication will decrease More functional learning increase I mean learning more practical skills
Face-to-Face, future, online, person-to-person, decrease, functional, skills "I said I prefer face to face learning But I think in the future [there will be] more online or technology based", "students person to person communication will decrease", "more practical skills".
Future: Online - video-conferences, Less socialization, Focus on skills. Future expectations: Poor socialization decreased person-to-person communication, skill-based learning Online learning should be associated to increasing opportunities for socialization
360
APPENDIX B MAIN VIDEO ETHNOGRAPHY DATA AND ANALYSIS
361 The data presented in Appendix B was selectively chosen from a large data set. The rule for selection was to represent the variety of data found. Further inquiry should be directed to the Illinois Institute of Technology.
362 B. 1
Student S1 Video Ethnography Data Analysis
STUDENT S1 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Age: x
18-22
23-29
M
F
30-39
40-49
Sex:
Education:
M.S. candidate in Computer Science
Nationality:
India
Figure B.1. Student S1 Demographics
50-59
60+
363
Figure B.2. Student S1 Traditional Classroom Layout
Figure B.3 S1‟s Traditional Class Use of Time, Student S1 Traditional Classroom Context, Instance 1, Taking Notes Without Looking
364
Table B.1 Student S1 Traditional Classroom Context, Instance 1, Taking Notes without Looking
365
366
367
368
369 Table B.2 Student S1 and Traditional Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Materials and Objects RELATION WITH MEDIA, MATERIALS & OBJECTS – Interaction, manipulation and creation Time 6:258:12
8:128:17 8:179:04
TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM INSTRUCTOR
STUDENT S1
Media & technology: Video camera, multimedia projector, laptop computer, remote control, microphone, and sound speakers. Materials: Marker. Objects: White board, large projection screen, and podium. Interaction: Instructor presents content to the class mainly orally and in written form, using the white board to write. Occasionally he uses his laptop and multimedia projector to display a Slide Show on a large projection screen. He tries to make the class conversational by asking lots of questions to the students. [Break]
Materials: Paper and pen. Interaction: Student S1 uses his paper to take notes, while he listens to the lecture, shaking his legs continuously.
(same)
(same)
[Break]
370
Student S1 Instance 1 – TAKING NOTES WITHOUT LOOKING
07:17 One-Way Delivery of Information Traditional Class [Auditorium] S1 sits in a big auditorium with 200 seats and about 30 students. The instructor lectures in the front stage, writes on the white boards from the notes on his hands, talks while he writes, and, now and then, brings down the lights and large screen, and projects a Slide Show from his laptop. During this instance, the instructor asks the students if what he explained is clear; and the students, together, say „yes‟. Next, the instructor goes to the white board, and writes and says what he is writing out loud. S1 takes notes hardly looking at the instructor or board, but mainly listening and writing, and now and then looking up to check for discrepancies. During the rest of the lecture, S1 looks little to the instructor and boards, and his notes are scattered. During the Slide Show presentation he gazes for larger periods of time. His legs, during the whole class, move a lot from one position to another, releasing energy through shaking up and down or from one side to the other. He also often changes the position of his arms, such as holding his chin.
Figure B.4. Student S1 Modes of Interaction within Traditional Classroom Cycles of Learning: Instance 1
371
Figure B.5. Student S1 Online Classroom Layout
Table B.3 Student S1 Modes of Interaction within Online Cycles of Learning, Instance 2 Student S1 Instance 2 – FALLING ASLEEP IN THE ONLINE CLASS
05:25 One-Way Delivery of Information, Online Class [Computer Lab] Forty-five minutes after the beginning of the online session, S1falls asleep for a few seconds and wakes up again. Fighting against his eyes that keep closing, he goes on with his engagement strategies, rotating the chair from one side to the other rhythmically. Like in the traditional classroom, he does not keep a lot of eye contact with the instructor, in this case, displayed at the computer screen. S1 mainly listens, while keeping his arms crossed around his waist. In addition, he often nods with his head facing down or, occasionally, looking at the screen, demonstrating that he is paying attention and that he is making sense of what the instructor is saying. He also shakes his legs up and down frenetically, when he is not rotating the chair, and sometimes he does them all together. Now and then he clicks the mouse, but does not take any notes.
372 Table B.4 Student S1 Online Classroom Context, Instance 2, Falling Asleep in the Online Class ONLINE 0:45 | 5:25 pm 0” to 9” Instructor lectures in front of the video camera, and the lecture is recorded and delivered online, not in real time. Other students in the lab use the computers. S1 pauses the lecture, opens the calculator, and conducts search on Google.
0” S1 rotates his chair and crosses his arms. His head falls heavily down as he falls asleep. 1” S1 lifts his head slowly and starts shaking his legs. Again he looks down and closes his eyes, while rotating his chair. 4” S1 reaches the mouse and clicks, pauses the lecture and opens the calculator. He does some calculations and plays the lecture again. 7” S1 shakes his right leg, while keeping his head straight and eyes on the screen. Next he rotates the chair and puts his hands on his belly. 9” S1 reaches the mouse, pauses the lecture, opens the browser, types the Web address on the keyboard and reads the content of the page. Next he closes the browser and plays the lecture again. Earphones on, crossed arms, rotating chair, shaking legs, trying to listen attentively, but with little eye contact with the screen.
PICTURE
ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
STUDENT MULTIMODALITY
CONTEXT/ INSTRUCTOR
TIME
00:00:02
00:01:47
00:04:38
00:09:14
373 ONLINE 0:55 | 5:35 pm 0” to 9” Instructor lectures in front of the video camera, and the lecture is recorded and delivered online, not in real time. The student pauses the lecture a few times, opens the browser window to search on Google again. Other students in the lab use the computers, and one of them talks on the cell phone.
0” S1 reaches the mouse and moves the lecture forward. 3” S1 shakes his legs, and his eyes briefly close and open, as he almost falls asleep again. Next, he places his hands on his lap. 4” S1 holds the mouse again and smiles. From the head up position and open eyes, he moves to the head down position and closed eyes. He nods with his eyes closed. Apparently falling asleep again. He, then, rotates his chair once more. 5” S1 reaches the mouse and clicks the university website. He rotates his chair with open eyes. Then, his head falls heavily. He lifts it again and looks straight to the screen. 6” S1 opens the class page; then opens another browser window and do some search on Google. 7” S1 opens the class slides and reads while rotating the chair. 9” S1 looks down, rotates chair, rests his hands together on his lap, and reaches the mouse to scroll the class project page down. Earphones on, hands on mouse clicking now and then, opening other software, using the keyboard, rotating chair, shaking legs, trying to listen attentively.
PICTURE
ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
STUDENT MULTIMODALITY
CONTEXT/ INSTRUCTOR
TIME
00:00:31
00:06:13
00:03:41
00:08:41
374 ONLINE 1:05 | 5:45 pm 0” to 9” Instructor lectures in front of the video camera, and the lecture is recorded and delivered online, not in real time. The student again pauses the lecture a few times, and opens another browser window next to window with the class video, and searches content on Wikipedia and Google. Other students in the lab use the computers.
0” S1 clicks the mouse, opens a browser window next to the class video window, types Wikipedia, searches content, and nods. 1” S1, while reading the screen, rotates chair, places hands on his lap, then reaches mouse, scrolls down webpage and continues reading. 2” S1 looks at the computer screen, rotates chair and yawns. 3” S1 reaches mouse and clicks, reaches keyboard, types Google, search content, scrolls down page, and clicks. 5” S1 scrolls page down, clicks, scrolls, clicks, places hands on his lap, reads and yawns. 7” S1 rotates chair, closes his eyes, and places hands on his lap. 8” S1 reaches mouse, reaches keyboard, types and opens Wikipedia, searches content, reads and nods. 9” S1 reads and nods, than puts hands on his lap and looks down.
Earphones on, hands on mouse clicking now and then, opening other software, using the keyboard, rotating chair, trying to listen attentively.
PICTURE
ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
STUDENT MULTIMODALITY
CONTEXT/ INSTRUCTOR
TIME
00:01:26
00:03:35
0006:31
00:09:21
375 Table B.5 Student S1 and Online Classroom Instructor Relation with Media, Materials and Objects RELATION WITH MEDIA, MATERIALS & OBJECTS – Interaction, manipulation and creation Time 4:406:00
ONLINE CLASSROOM INSTRUCTOR
Technology & Media: Video camera, microphone, wireless computer connected to the Web, Slide Show presentation. Materials: Sketch pad, pen and marker. Interaction: Instructor presents content to the class in front of the video camera, using a sketch pad and pen to draw and write, and using his notebook to display a Slide Show. The video camera shifts focus from instructor to yellow pad to Slide show at the command of the instructor.
STUDENT S1
Technology & Media: Wireless personal computer connected to the Web. Interaction: Student S1 uses the lab computer to access the class video, to which he watches passively. He pauses the video a few times to use the Internet and search related content.
Table B.6 Student S1 Interview INTERVIEW – Student S1 Student Profile Question 1 Answer 1 Question 2
Answer 2 Question 3 Answer 3
Question 4 Answer 4
What is learning for you? Learning? Enrich. What do you know about your own preferred way of learning and the things you do to learn best? I like to listen and to practice. What did you learn in the class that was observed? I learned about the subject. Like given an address, how to find the web address for that. In this class, the main thing was the definition of software project. Um software project is a group of people working together, building a software for a client, for a customer. The project should be delivered within the cost, within the budget, within correct time and the software should be of good quality. How was this class organized? In the live class was a good one, the materials was presented through the slides. And in this class, also, in the classroom, in the iTV. I like the way of presenting the slides, the sequence of the slides, step by step.
376
INTERVIEW – Student S1 Student Profile Question 5
Answer 5
Question 6 Answer 6
Question 7
Answer 7
Question 8 Answer 8 Question 9 Answer 9
Question 10
Answer 10
What did you like or not about the way the information was presented during this class? In the live class we have the chance to interact more with the professor. In the iTV [televised class] we can also interact but there is a difference between live and iTV. In the live class we can be more free, we can see the professor. We can ask any doubts. In the iTV we see the TV monitor. I miss the personal interaction. In the iTV the interaction is there, but it is a TV monitor. There is no live professor. How do you view your participation in this class? In the first class [traditional], I just listened to the class. And this one [online] also. In which ways do you interact with the instructor and your classmates in this class? And how effective do you think communication is? In the live class, if I have any doubts, I note them down on the notebook and after the class I go and ask the instructor. In the iTV class, I make questions through the monitor. The differences between live and iTV is having the instructor in front of you or only a monitor. The similarities are that the materials are presented. I understand both of them. Both are good, the same way the professor presents in the live class, he does in the iTV. I feel I like the live class better than the online class or the iTV, because in the live we can interact a little bit, it is good to interact with the professor. I learn the same, but I prefer live class. In which ways is technology used in this class and in relation to it? Video camera, TV and computer. What would you change or improve in this class? Nothing, nothing. You cannot do much to improve iTV. There is no professor standing in front of you. And in the live class, the professor will be there. In the future, how do you think learning will take place? Give details about possible circumstances, environments, technologies and groupings. Definitively better than the current technology. The way of interaction would be better, between the instructor and the professor. Like if the professor can provide live examples instead of just showing on the monitor. Can show the live examples on the TV or Internet, online. If my friend is taking the same class, living in another State. He can be sitting in front of the monitor. And the professor will be teaching us, me and my friend, and I can see and hear both of them. Like that we can get to know the subject more.
377
APPENDIX C COMPLEMENTARY VIDEO ETHNOGRAPHY DATA AND ANALYSIS
378 The data presented in Appendix C was selectively chosen from a large data set. The rule for selection was to represent the variety of data found. Further inquiry should be directed to the Illinois Institute of Technology.
379 C. 1
Student T4 Video Ethnography Data Analysis
STUDENT T4 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Age:
x 18-22
23-29
30-39
40-49
Sex: M
F
Education:
M.Des. candidate in Design
Nationality:
US
Figure C.1. Student T4 Demographics
50-59
60+
380
Figure C.2. Student T4 Classroom Layout
Figure C.3. Use of Time within T4‟s Traditional Classroom
10:05 Hands-On Practice [Group Work] In preparation to the group work, T4 hunts voraciously, together with other students from her group and from the other groups, the Lego pieces that they will need to accomplish the assignment. During her group work, a Lego three-wheeler car is assembled by two of the group members. Another group member takes pictures of the process, while T4 takes hand notes. The others observe and talk.
11:34 Two-Way Narrative Construction [Group Work] First, T4‟s group (group D) and the members of group C agree on a common Lego car design. Next, each group develops an assembly process for the Lego car they built. The goal is to have a quick assembly process, once one group will compete against the other during the presentation of the work. While T4‟s group interacts, they discuss the mechanics of the assembly process and try to find a quicker solution. US1 says: “One way to start would be working on the chassis.” To which a male Israeli student replies: “Ok. So one person is in charge of the chassis while the other person maybe works on the tiles.”
Figure C. 4. Student T4 Modes of Interaction within Cycles of Learning
09:03 One-Way Delivery of Information [Classroom] T4 seats in the last row of the right side of the classroom in the beginning of the class, when the instructor introduces the topic. T4 often uses her laptop to type notes. Other times, she just crosses her arms and listens to the lecture, while swiveling the chair here and there.
12:15 Feedback on Performance [Classroom] T4 did not present her group work, only US1 and another male US student presented for her group, taking part in the Lego car assembly contest against another group. T4 sits next to the team members who are doing the car assembly, and shows nervosity by putting her nails in the mouth. The other group finishes assembling the car first, and T4‟s group looses the competition. During the feedback, when T4‟s group explains their assembly process, Instructor A says: “There is some waiting for the other person.”
381
382 VERBAL COMMUNICATION TRANSCRIPTION Instance 1 | T4 During Preparation to Group Work | Meat Hunting Time
Behavior [T4 does several things simultaneously]
10:12:15
IL1 to US1: “What is up?” US1 to IL1: “[Unintelligible].” IL1 to US1: “Too small, too small, too small. [pause] Too small.” US1 to IL1: “Can you give me [unintelligible] for the wheels?”
10:12:44
US1 to IL1: “Can you give me two?” IL1 to US1: “Umm.” US1 to IL1: “We also need [Unintelligible].” IL1 to US1: “Here is the forth [Unintelligible].”
10:13:01
US1 to IL1: “[Unintelligible].” IL1 to US1: “[Unintelligible].” US1 to IL1 and T4: “[Unintelligible].” T4 to IL1 and US1: “[Unintelligible].” IL1 to US1 and T4: “[Unintelligible].”
10:13:15
IL1 to KR9: “Hey K [Name of one student], we found [Unintelligible].” KR9 to IL1: “Ok.” US1 to IL1 and T4: “Let‟s start building the chassis.”
Figure C.5. T4 During Preparation to Group Work, Meat Hunting
Figure C. 6. Student T4 During Preparation to Group Work, A
383
Figure C. 7. Student T4 During Preparation to Group Work, B
384
Figure C. 8. Student T4 During Preparation to Group Work, C
385
Figure C. 9. Student T4 During Preparation to Group Work, D
386
Figure C. 10. Student T4 Instance 1 Multimodal Communication Representation 387
388
VERBAL COMMUNICATION TRANSCRIPTION Instance 2 | T4 During Group Work | Car Design & Contest Instructions [While groups C and D discuss the Lego car design, the instructor speaks to the class to clarify doubts regarding the assignment] Time
Behavior [The instructor makes a demonstration]
10:22:22
KR3 to T4: “[Inaudible].” T4 to KR3: “Ok. You‟ve got it?” T4 to US31: “There you go”. US31 to T4: “[Unintelligible] stay here [pause] [Unintelligible].” T4 to US31: ”[Unintelligible].” US30 to T4: ”[Unintelligible].” T4 to US30: “Do you have a second model? I have like a variety of spans that [Unintelligible].”
10:23:01
10:23:27
US31 to T4: “[Unintelligible].” T4 to US31: “[Unintelligible].”
10:23:41
KR3 to T4, US31 and KR10: “I think [Unintelligible].” T4 to KR3: “[Laugh] [F] Ooh, this is better?” KR3 to T4: “[Unintelligible].” T4 to KR3: “[Laugh] We all have parts.”
10:24:01
T4 to KR3, US31, US30 and KR10: US31 to KR3, T4, US30 and KR10: KR10 to T4, KR3, US31 and US30: US30 to T4, KR3, US31 and KR10:
10:24:29
IL1 to KR10: “Here is something [Unintelligible]. [Pause] [H, I] Here is the connector [Unintelligible].” KR10 to IL1: “Ok.”
10:24:39
ME1 to US31, KR10, T4, KR3, US30 and IL1: “Are we going to [Unintelligible] the cars?” US31 to ME1: “We don‟t have to [Unintelligible].” ME1 to US31: “[Unintelligible].” US31 to ME1: “Ya [Unintelligible]. [Pause] “The other one has a [Unintelligible] thing.” KR10 to KR3, US31, ME1, T4, US30, IL1 and US1: “How do we connect [Unintelligible]?”
10:25:13
Instructor to Class: “1 “[A] Ok, I got several questions about the roles that need clarification.” 3 “[medium speed, loud clapping] I got very good questions about how this works. [pause] The first question is how to do the analysis. [Brief pause] I claim um that it is very difficult without any experience in how to assemble the car or knowing how the car is. So, the analysis should wait until the very end. You should see in the analysis what you will actually get in the context. KR9 to C and D Groups: “Oh, cool.”
10:25:41
Instructor to Class: “Um. At noon we are going to have the contest. So, you are going to compete against each other. Actually group A will compete against group B. To make it a fair competition, you will have the same design. You understand that? So M [name of a hypothetic company] will design the cell telephone, but the Chinese and the um American will compete to build it as fast as they can. So, A is American and B is Beijing. You have to assemble the same design. So, C and D … Are you C? So, you agree on one design. I suggest to make it simple. Um. Groups E, F and G should agree on one design. This should be a three way competition. Now, I suggest you to keep it simple because you have to assemble it, and disassemble, and re-assemble.
“Ok. [F, G]” “[Unintelligible] only one of those.” “No [Unintelligible].” “So, are you [Unintelligible].”
Figure C.11. T4 During Group Work
Figure C. 12. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest Instructions, A
389
Figure C. 13. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest Instructions, B
390
Figure C. 14. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest Instructions, C
391
Figure C. 15. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest Instructions, D
392
Figure C. 16. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest Instructions, E
393
Figure C. 17. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest, F
394
Figure C. 18. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest Instructions, G
395
Figure C. 19. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest Instructions, H
396
Figure C. 20. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest Instructions, I
397
398
Figure C.21. Day 4, In Class Group Work Assignment
Figure C. 22. Student T4 During Group Work, Car Design & Contest Instructions
399
400
VERBAL COMMUNICATION TRANSCRIPTION Instance 3 | T4 During Group Work | Decision-Making & Note Taking Time
Behavior [T4 takes the task of taking notes to document the car assembly process of her group]
10:46:49
US1 to US33, US32, IL1, T4 and US31: “Maybe we can split up the assembly and get organized. Someone has a pencil? [Brief pause] Start writing down: primary assembly list.”
10:47:02
US1 to T4: “Order of operations. So, you put the gray piece onto the two black [Unintelligible] part, making [Unintelligible]. US32 to US33: “[Unintelligible].” US33 to US32: “Ya.” IL1 to US1, US32, US33 and T4: “Should we, maybe, type it up on the computer instead of writing? Then we can project it and show it.” US1 to IL1: 5 “It is fine.” US32 to IL1: 6 “Ok.” T4 to IL1: “Ok.”
10:47:35
IL1 to US1, US32, US33 and T4: “[Unintelligible].” T4 to IL1, US1, US32, and US33: “Are you gonna grab yours?” IL1 to US1, US32, US33 and T4: “Ya.” US1 to IL1, T4, US32, and US33: “I am going to attach the [Unintelligible] block [pause] [Unintelligible] yellow.” T4 to IL1, US1, US32, and US33: “[Unintelligible].” US1 to IL1, T4, US32, and US33: “[Unintelligible, I].” US32 to US1: “It‟s my first [Unintelligible] putting the axis in the middle [Unintelligible].” US1 to US32: “[Unintelligible] assemble the chest [pause] [Unintelligible].” US33 to US1: “We will … um for this? [Unintelligible] middle of the chest, then the other [Unintelligible].” US32 to US1: “My next [Unintelligible] .” US32 to IL1: Do you want to swap place with me?” IL1 to US32: “Um, sure.”
10:48:02
Figure C.23. Student T4 During One-Way Delivery of Information, Attention Spam and Body Movement
Figure C. 24. Student T4 During Group Work, Decision Making & Note Taking, A
401
Figure C. 25. Student T4 During Group Work, Decision Making & Note Taking, B
402
Figure C. 26. Student T4 During Group Work, Decision Making & Note Taking, C
403
Figure C. 27. Student T4 During Group Work, Decision Making & Note Taking, D
404
Figure C. 28. Student T4 Instance 3 Multimodal Communication Representation
405
406 VERBAL COMMUNICATION TRANSCRIPTION Instance 4 | T1 Group Work | Work-In-Progress Feedback and Adjustments [There is a lot of noise in the room, so the dialogues are mostly unintelligible] Time
Behavior [Students are sitting or standing around a long table.]
11:34:51
T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: “I think you are recording in a different way than how you were recording before.” US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: “This is [Unintelligible].” T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: “I think sometimes you use the left hand, / sometimes the right hand, sometimes both, and that needs to be considered. Does it make sense [pause]?” US31 to US1, T4, IL1 and US33: “/Ya, that is what I...” US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: “Ya, I think [unintelligible].” T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: “[Unintelligible].”
11:35:05
T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: US31 to US1, T4, IL1 and US33: T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33:
“Great.” “Let‟s a [unintelligible].” “Let‟s see ”[Unintelligible].” ”[Unintelligible].” „Huh-huh.” ”[Unintelligible].”
11:35:49
US31 to US1, T4, IL1 and US33: US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: US31 to US1, T4, IL1 and US33: US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: US31 to US1, T4, IL1 and US33: T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33:
“And I see that these are [Unintelligible].” “Ok. These are the two”[Unintelligible].” “Ya, ya.” “[Unintelligible].” “What is A, B, C [Unintelligible]?” ”[Unintelligible].”
11:36:10
US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: “Are there two [Unintelligible]?” US31 to US1, T4, IL1 and US33: “Let‟s see … uh ”[Unintelligible].” T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: “[Unintelligible].” US31 to US1, T4, IL1 and US33: ”[Unintelligible] these are the [Unintelligible].” US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: ”[Unintelligible].” US31 to US1, T4, IL1 and US33: “Ya… [Unintelligible].” US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: ”[Unintelligible].”
11:36:54
T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: “Maybe it is [Unintelligible].” US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: “[Unintelligible].”
11:37:33
T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: “[Unintelligible].” US1 to T4, US31, IL1 and US33: “[Unintelligible US31 to US1, T4, IL1 and US33: “[Unintelligible].”
11:37:45
T4 to Instructor: “[Unintelligible].”
11:38:15
T4 to Instructor: “[Unintelligible].” Instructor: to T4: “[Unintelligible].” Instructor: to T4: “[Unintelligible].” T4 to Instructor: “[Unintelligible]. Thanks [D].”
11:38:27
11:38:47
T4 to US31, US1, IL1 and US33: “[Unintelligible].”
Figure C.29. T4 Group (G) Work
Figure C. 30. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, A
407
Figure C. 31. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, B
408
Figure C. 32. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, C
409
Figure C. 33. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, D
410
Figure C. 34. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, E
411
Figure C. 35. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, F
412
Figure C. 36. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, G
413
Figure C. 37. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, H
414
Figure C. 38. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and Adjustments, I
415
Figure C. 39. Student T4 Group (G) Work, Work-in-Progress Feedback and, J
416
Figure C. 40. Student T4 Instance 4 Multimodal Communication Representation
417
418 VERBAL COMMUNICATION TRANSCRIPTION Instance 5 | T4 Group Presentation, Day 4 | Assembly Competition Time
12:36:42
Behavior [All the 50 students are gathered in one area of the classroom, while two or three teams compete at a time to see which one assembles the Lego car faster. The dialogues are mostly unintelligible for the whole sequence.] US1 to T4: “[Unintelligible]/.” KR10 to US1 and US32: “/He is going to start [Unintelligible].” Instructor to class: “[Unintelligible].”
12:37:20
Instructor to class: “Ok. In five seconds. Five, four, three, two, one, go.”
12:37:52
Students in the class among themselves: “[Unintelligible] [Laugh now and the n].”
12:37:58
Students in the class among themselves: “[Unintelligible] [Laugh now and then].” Instructor to class: “Four minutes [pause]. Three minutes [pause]. Two minutes [pause].”
12:40:17
Instructor to class: “One minute [pause]. “Ten seconds [pause].” Students in the class among themselves: “[Unintelligible] [Laugh now and then].”
12”42:17
Students in the class among themselves: “[Unintelligible] [Laugh now and then].” Instructor to class: “Four, three, two, one, stop.”
12:42:27
Students in the class among themselves: “[Unintelligible]/.” US1: Students in the class to all: “Uaw.” Student from group C to US1 and US32: “How many have you completed?” US32 to Student from group C: “Six.” Student from group C to US1 and US32: “We‟ve completed seven.” Students in the class to all: “Oooow.”
Figure C.41. Student T4 Group Presentation (E), Day 4, Verbal Communication Transcription
Figure C. 42. Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, A
419
Figure C. 43. Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, B
420
Figure C. 44. Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, C
421
Figure C. 45. Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, D
422
Figure C. 46. Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, E
423
Figure C. 47. Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, F
424
Figure C. 48. Student T4 Group Presentation, Day 4, G
425
Figure C. 49. Student T4 Instance 5 Multimodal Communication Representation
426
427 CYCLES OF LEARNING | One-Way Delivery of Information Time 9:00-9:59
Behavior Instructor lectures on the major concepts within the topic, and give examples, illustrating them with image and text that are displayed on the large screen.
12:1513:09
Groups A and B compete and each explains the assembly process – 5 minutes, US12 and US13. Groups C and D compete and each explains the assembly process – 5 minutes, US12 and US13. Groups E, F and G compete and each explains the assembly process – 5 minutes, US12 and US13.
Figure C.50. Student T4 Cycles of Learning, One-way Delivery of Information
CYCLES OF LEARNING | Hands-On Practice Time 10:1010:29
Behavior Students manipulate materials in the tool boxes, checking what is available and gathering the necessary materials.
10:3011:44
Pair of groups experiment with Lego pieces in order to decide on a Lego car design.
11:4512:15
Each group works on the assembly process.
Figure C.51. Student T4 Cycles of Learning, Hands-On Practice
CYCLES OF LEARNING | Two-Way Narrative Construction Time 10:1010:29
Behavior Pairs of groups discuss regarding the Lego pieces they will need for assembling a Lego car.
10:3011:44
Pairs of groups discuss in order to decide on a Lego car design.
11:4512:15
Each group discusses the assembly process.
Figure C. 52. Student T4 Cycles of Learning, Two-Way Narrative Construction
CYCLES OF LEARNING | Feedback on Performance Time 12:15-13:00
Behavior Feedback on Groups A and B performance – At the end of the first contest section, and after groups A and B explain their assembly process. No longer than 2 minutes. Feedback on Groups C and D performance – At the end of the second contest section, and after groups C and D explain their assembly process. No longer than 2 ½ minutes. Feedback on Groups E, F and G performance – At the end of the third contest section, and after groups E, F and G explain their assembly process. No longer than 5 minutes.
Figure C.53. Student T4 Cycles of Learning, Feedback on Performance
428
Figure C.54. Instructor‟s Use of Space
Figure C.55. Student T4‟s Use of Space
429
Figure C.56. Groups A & B Competition and Presentation, Day 4, Use of Space During Presentation
Figure C.57. Groups C & D, Day Competition and Presentation, Day 4, Use of Space During Presentation
430
Figure C.58. Group E, F & G Competition and Presentation, Day 4, Use of Space During Presentation
431 RELATION WITH MEDIA, MATERIALS & OBJECTS – Interaction, manipulation and creation Time 9:1010:40
10:4111:50
11:50113:09
INSTRUCTOR
Media: Video camera, projector, wireless computer connected to the Web. Materials: Sketch pad, pen and marker. Objects: Large projection screen, tripod, white board on wheels, levelers, rods, light switch and curtain (blind) switch. Interaction: Instructor presents content to the class using a sketch pad and pen to draw and write, and using the video camera and projector to display what he produces on a large projection screen. A few times, he also makes use of a wireless computer connected to the Web to show web pages to the class, using the projector and large screen for display. He also makes a series of demonstrations, asking students to hold weights (levelers and rods) and identify which one is heavier, and turning off and bringing down all the lights and curtains or blinders in the room, opening or closing more and asking the students to identify if the room got lighter or darker.
STUDENT T4
Media: Wireless computer connected to the Web. Materials: Paper and pen. Interaction: Student T4 uses his wireless notebook almost continuously and takes notes on his paper notebook now and then.
Materials: Paper. Objects: Lego blocks, levelers, rods, springs, washers and rubber bands. Interaction: Student T4 builds and tests a series of spring-loaded levelers together with his team. Media: Wireless computer connected to the Web. Materials: Paper and pen. Interaction: Student T4 uses his wireless notebook continuously, while he listens to the group presentations and to the final considerations of the instructor.
Figure C.59. Student T4 and Instructor Relation with Media, Materials and Objects
432 Table C.1 Student T4 Interview INTERVIEW – Student T4 Student Profile Question 1 Answer 1
Question 2
Answer 2
Question 3 Answer 3
Question 4 Answer 4
Question 5
Answer 5
What is learning for you? Um. The chance, the chance to sort of expand myself, my [brief pause] frame of reference. To grow and change as a person. What do you know about your own preferred way of learning and the things you do to learn best? I think I am a sort of visual learner, but in order to … I have trouble sometimes remaining focused. So, in order to do that I prefer to be engaged constantly in what I am doing. Um, whether be like, for instance, I could not get through the presentation yesterday. So, in order for me to be like [embarrassment laugh] engaged, I had to be the one typing everything. Then I could like focus on the project. And I gained a lot more from that than just listening. [long pause] It is hard for me to stay awake during this lecture. What did you learn in the class that was observed? I really enjoyed [full name of the instructor]‟s class, actually. He is an excellent speaker. I really enjoyed, I really felt class-like in a way. Even though the theories he talked about were very complex, he made it fun and engaging. I learned a lot about [name of the subject], in terms of how people relate to the world. I mean … maybe how they approach things and why they do so. [long pause] A kind of scientific, isn‟t it? How was this class organized? It is definitely like a lecture with examples, um concrete examples. And you can use what you learned to go out and explore. I can certainly apply the principles that we were lectured on. What did you like or not about the way the information was presented during this class? I really liked the way information was presented. It was a lecture, which I typically don‟t [embarrassed laugh] enjoy as much. But he was able to disseminate information in a way that was engaging and fun. Um, he never dumbbed his lecture down, like I feel like sometimes other professors will do. He is always scientific, with all the complexities. And basically, he made it in a way that everyone understood. [pause] It was fast paced, I enjoyed that.
433 INTERVIEW – Student T4 Student Profile Learning Preferences Visual Representation Question 6 Answer 6
Question 7
Answer 7
Question 8 Answer 8
Question 9 Answer 9
How do you view your participation in this class? Um, I have never been big at speaking up during lectures. I just don‟t like to speak in front of groups. I don‟t speak up that way really in any of my classes. I don‟t find it suits me at all. Um [brief pause] in terms of little projects, the smaller the group the more I will be able to participate [brief pause] really. Which I think the most people find that to be the case. Ah, but for most classes, I think that I found a way to contribute. In which ways do you interact with the instructor and your classmates in this class? And how effective do you think communication is? The only way that I interacted with the [instructor] was by asking him questions aside from the lecture context, just to clarify the exercise we were doing. And with my team mates it was about planning. That is it, really, the logistics and also sort of understanding the content of [unintelligible]. In which ways is technology used in this class and in relation to it? Sometimes you can look up information on the Web, like on the Internet, which supports what the instructor is talking about [unintelligible]. Of course putting the presentation together helps ah other people understand uh the findings that we came up with. [pause] I like to take notes on Microsoft Word, so I can actually [giggles] read them when I go back What would you change or improve in this class? Uuuh. [pause] Although I think it would make it difficult, because that just might be impossible, I think trying to make smaller groups actually. The teams were quite large [pause], seven people, could have been four or five [pause] would be more effective. Everybody would be able to participate more. [long pause] But that is not ah, I mean, there were so many people in the class. Actually I really enjoyed it.
434 INTERVIEW – Student T4 Student Profile Learning Preferences Visual Representation Question 10
Answer 10
In the future, how do you think learning will take place? Give details about possible circumstances, environments, technologies and groupings. Ah, for my experience from the past, I found that when people are, not only say private lesson, when education is more personalized, people tend to get more out of it. More geared towards finding ways for students to enable themselves to get more out of the process. I don‟t know if that means like, students moving on their own pace. When you have a bunch of people together in the same classroom, some people understand the information a lot but other people learn in different ways. So I think it should be more personalized. In the future, probably more technology based. Maybe many people could do things outside the classroom, I guess distance learning, but also collaborating with the other people that might help with the project that are not in the room, in real time.
435 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adger, C. (2001). Discourse in educational settings. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 503-517). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Albrechtsen, H., Andersen, H., Bødker, S., & Pejtersen, A. (2001). Affordances in Activity Theory and Cognitive Systems Engineering (Internal report). Denmark: Riso National Laboratory. Alibali, M., & Dirusson, A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14, 37-56. Allwood, J. (2002). Bodily communication: Dimensions of expression and content. In B. Granström, D. House, & I. Karlsson (Eds.), Multimodality in Language and Speech Systems (pp. 7-26). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Anastopoulou, S.(2004). Investigating multimodal interactions for the design of learning environments: A case study in Science learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, School of Electronics, Electrical and Computing Engineering, United Kingdom. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.syros.aegean.gr/users/ manast/Pubs/Pub_thes/PhD/SAnastop_ Thesis.pdf Anastopoulou, S., Baber, C., & Sharples, M. (2001). Multimedia and multimodal systems: commonalities and differences. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.infor matics.susx.ac.uk/research/hct/hctw2001 /papers/anastopoulou.pdf. Anderson, R. (1977). The Notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R. Anderson, R. Spiro, & W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge (pp. 415-431). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Anderson, J. (1981). Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Anderson, J. (1990). The Adaptive Character of Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Andrews, K., Barrios, V., Gütl, C., Mödritscher, F., Pivec, M., Preis, A., et al. (2004, September). AdeLE: A framework for adaptive e-learning through eye-tracking. Proceedings of ICL, Austria. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.know-center.at/.../AdeLE%20A%20Framework%20for%20 Adaptive%20E-Learning%20through%20Eye%20 Tracking.pdf/.
436 Aoki, P., & Woodruff, A. (2005, April). Making space for stories: Ambiguity in the design of personal communication systems. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI‟05, Portland, OR, 181-190. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www2.parc.com/csl/projects/audiospaces/publications.htm. Armbruster, B. (1996). Schema Theory and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist, 21, 253-276. Argyle, M. (1975). Bodily communication. United Kingdom: Methuen Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. The APA Monitor, 27(3), 25. Argyle, M., & Cook, M.(1976). Gaze and Mutual gaze. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Ashby, W. (1964). Introduction to Cybernetics. United Kingdom: Routledge Kegan & Paul. Baber, C., & Mellor, B. (2001). Using critical path analysis to model multimodal humancomputer interaction. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 54, 613-636. Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. United Kingdom: Clarendon Press. Banks, W., & Krajicek, D. (1991). Perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 305331. Barbieri, T.; Bianchi,A.; Bruna, S.; Mainetti, L.; and Sbattella, L. (2005). MultiLezi, an Adaptive Multichannel Learning Environment. In Mobile Information Systems, Infrastructure and Design for Adaptivity and Flexibility, New York, NY: Springer. Barlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A Study in experimental and social psychology. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Barrarbee, K. (2004). Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction. Unpublished academic dissertation, University of Art and Design, Finland. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.uiah.fi/publications. Bearne, M., Jones, S., & Sapsford-Francis, J. (1994). Towards usability guidelines for multimedia systems. ACM/Multimedia, San Francisco, CA, 105-110. Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2004, May). Design interaction, not interfaces. AVI‟04, Italy.
437 Beebe, S., Beebe, S., & Redmond, M. (2002). Interpersonal communication: Relating to others, 3rd Edition, Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Beer, S. (1981). The Brain of the Firm, 2nd Edition, Chichester: John Wiley. Beer, S. (1984). The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35(1), 7-25. Beishuizen, J., & Stoutjesdijk, E. (1999). Study strategies in a computer assisted study environment. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 281-301. Belloni, M. (1999). Educação a distância [Distance education]. Brazil: Editora Autores Associados. Bellucci, A., Cinque, L., De Marsico, M., Levialdi, S., & Malizia, A. (2005, October). Approaches to multimodal analysis of groups of students learning online. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Multimodal Multiparty Meeting Processing, ICMI/MMMP‟05, Italy. Benali-Khoudja, M., Orange, C., Maingreaud, F., Hafez, M., Kheddar, A., & Pissaloux, E. (2004, September). Shape and direction perception using VITAL: A vibrotactiLe interface. International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE/RSJ, Japan. Bergeron, C. (1999). Interactive experiences. In NAB Multimedia World. Last Retrieved August 15, 2007 from http:// http://rocky.itasca.net/~corrie/intexp.pdf. Berlanga, A., & Garcia, F. (2004, May). An adaptive meta-model for e-learning. Interacción‟04, Spain. Bers, J., Miller, S., & Makhoul, J. (1998). Designing conversational interfaces with multimodal interaction. DARPA Workshop on Broadcast News Understanding Systems, 319-321. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1999). Contextual design. Interactions, 6(1), 32-42. Blackstone, S. & Berg, M. (2003). Social Networks: A communication inventory for individuals with complex communication needs and their communication partners. Monterey, CA: Augmentative Communication, Inc. Blatner, A. (2002). About nonverbal communication: General considerations. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.blatner.com/adam/level2/nverb1.htm. Bolinger, D. (1983). Where does intonation belong? Journal of Semantics, 2, 101- 120.
438 Bolt, R. (1980). Put-that-there: Voice and gesture at the graphics interface. Computer Graphics, 14 (3), 262-270. Bonn, S. (2007). Transitioning from Traditional to Hybrid and Online Teaching. In Journal of School of Foreign Languages, Nagoya University of Foreign Studies Vol.32 (20070200) pp. 265-278. Bonham, L. (1988). Learning style use: In need of perspective. Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 11(5), 14-19. Boren, T., & Ramey, J. (2000). Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(3), 261-278. Bourne, J., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Orchestrating debate: A multimodal analysis of classroom interaction. UKLA‟03. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Co. Boyle, T., & Cook, J. (2004). Understanding and using technological affordances: A commentary on Conole & Dyke, ALT-J, 12(3), 295-299. Britain, S., & Liber, O. (1999). A framework for pedagogical evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments (JTAP report, 41). Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: www.jtap. ac.uk/reports/htm/jtap-041.doc. Britt, M., Rouet, J., & Perfetti, C. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. Goldman, A. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209-233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, J. (2001). Learning in the digital age. In The Internet and the University: 2001 Forum. Boulder, CO: Educause. Retrieved on July 10, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=666&ID=FFPIU015&bhcp=1. Brown, J. (2002). Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. Boston, MA: United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved on July 10, 2006, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_ Issue/article01.html. Brown, J. (2003, March). The social life of information: Learning in the digital age. Keynote presentation at the 2003 TechEd Ontario Conference, Ontario, Canada. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York, NY: Norton. Bruner, J. (1984). Vygotsky‟s zone of proximal development: The hidden agenda. In B. Rogoff, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Children‟s learning in the “zone of proximal development (pp.93-97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
439
Bruner, J. (1985). Models of the learner. Educational Researcher, 14(6), 5-8. Burgoon, J., Buslig, A., & Roiger, J. (1996). Nonverbal communication: the unspoken dialogue (2nd edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Butler, K. (Ed.) (1988). Learning and teaching styles: theory and practice. Columbia, CT: Learner‟s Dimension. Brusilovsky, P. (1999). Adaptive and intelligent technologies for web-based education. Special Issue on intelligent systems and teleteaching, Künstliche Intelligenz, 4, 19-25. Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User modeling and user adapted interaction, 11 (1-2), 87-110. Brusilovsky, P., Eklund, J., & Schwarz, E. (1998). Web-based education for all: A tool for developing adaptive courseware. In Proceedings of Seventh International World Wide Web Conference. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30 (1-7), 291-300. Brusilovsky, P., Schwarz, E., & Weber, G. (1996). ELM-ART: An intelligent tutoring system on World Wide Web. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1086, pp. 261-269). Germany: Springer-Verlag. Bubas, G. (2001). Computer mediated communication theories and phenomena: Factors that influence collaboration over the Internet. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.carnet.hr/CUC/cuc2001 /papers/b1.pdf. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. United Kingdom: Heinemann. Caldognetto, E., Poggi, I., Cosi, P., Cavicchio, F., & Merola, G. (2004). Multimodal score: an ANVIL™ based annotation scheme for multimodal audio-video analysis. In Proceedings of LREC 2004 Workshop on Multimodal Corpora, Models of Human Behaviour for the Specification and Evaluation of Multimodal Input and Output Interfaces (pp. 29-33), Portugal. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://pfstar.itc.it/public/publications/cp-em-LREC2004.pdf. Camurri, A. & Rikakis, T. (2004). Multisensory communication and experience through multimedia. IEEE Multimedia, 11(3), 17-19. Camurri, A., De Poli, G., Leman, M.&Volpe, G. (2005). Toward communicating expressiveness and affect in multimodal interactive systems for performing arts and cultural applications. IEEE Multimedia, 12(1), 43-53.
440
Card, S., Moran, T., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Carro, R., Pulido, E., & Rodriguez, P. (1999, May). TANGOW: Task-based adaptive learner guidance on the WWW”. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Adaptive Systems and User Modeling on the WWW , ASUM99 / 8th International World Wide Web Conference, Canada. Cassel, J.; Bickmore, T.; Vilhjalmsson, H. & Yan, H. (2000). More than just a pretty face: Affordances of embodiment. In Proceedings of 2000 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, New Orleans, LA. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chandler, D. (1994). Semiotics for Beginners. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html. Chapanis, A. (1975). Interactive human communication. Scientific American, 232, 36-42. Chou, C. (2002). A Comparative content analysis of student interaction in synchronous and asynchronous learning networks. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Ciccia, A., Step, M., & Turkstra, L. (2003). Show me what you mean: Nonverbal communication theory and application. The ASHA Leader, 34, 4-5. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.asha.org/about/publications/leaderonline/archives/2003/q4/f031216a.htm. Clancey, W. (1997). Situated Cognition: On Human Knowledge and Computer Representations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain Body and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clark, A. (1999). Embodied, situated, and distributed cognition. In W. Betchel, & G. Graham (Eds.), A Companion to Cognitive Science, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Clark. R. & Mayer, R. (2003). e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Cohen, P.; Johnston, M.; McGee, D.; McGee, D.; Oviatt, S.; Pittman, J.; Smith, I.; Chen, L.; and Clow, J. (1997). Quickset: Multimodal interaction for distributed
441 applications. Proceedings of the Fifth ACM International Multimedia Conference, 31-40. New York: ACM Press. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments (pp. 347 - 361). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Conlan, O., Dagger, D., & Wade, V. (2002). Towards a standards-based approach to elearning personalization using reusable learning objects. In World Conference on e-Learning in Corporation, Government, Health, & Higher Education, 10, 210217. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.aace.org/dl/index.cfm/ fuseaction/View/paperID/9365/. Conlan, O.; Wade, V.; Bruen, C.; & Gargan, M. (2002). Multi-model, metadata-driven approach to adaptive hypermedia services for personalized e-Learning. In De Bra, P., Brusilovsky, P. and Conejo, R. (Eds.) Proceedings of Second International Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems (AH'2002), Málaga, Spain, 100-111. Conole, G. (2007). Capturing practice: The role of mediating artefacts in learning design. In Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies. L. Lockyer, S. Gennett, S. Agostinho, and B. Harper. University of Wollongong, Faculty of Educations, UK. Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004a). What are the Affordances of Information and Communication Technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113-124. Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004b). Understanding and Using Technological Affordances: a response to Boyle & Cook, ALT-J, 12(3), 301-308. Conole, G. & Fill, K. (2005). „A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities‟, Journal of Interactive Multimedia Education, 8. Last retrieved October 27, 2006, from: http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2005/08/. Conole, G. & Weller, M. (2007), „Using learning design as a framework for supporting the design and reuse of OER‟, paper accepted for the Ist OpenLearn Conference, The Open University, October, 2007. Crais, E., Douglas, D., & Campbell, C. (2004, June). The Intersection of the development of gestures and intentionality. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47, 678-694. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
442 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers. Csordas, T. (1990). Embodiment as a Paradigm for Anthropology. In Ethos 18 (1), 5-47. Cuban, L. (2004). Looking through the rearview mirror at school accountability. In K. Sirotnik (Ed.), Holding accountability accountable (pp. 18–34), New York: Teachers College Press. Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with attention to psychometric standards. Ottawa: Canadian College of Health Service Executives. Curry, L. (1991). Patterns of learning styles across selected medical specialties. Educational Psychology, 11, 247-278. Davydov, V. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research, and practice. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12-21. De Angeli, A., Gerbino, W., Cassano, G., & Petrelli, D. (1998). Visual Display, pointing and natural language: The power of multimodal interaction. Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, Italy. De Bra, P.; & Calvi, L. (1998, June). AHA: A generic adaptive hypermedia system. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Adaptive Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 512), Pittsburgh, PA. December, J. (1997). Notes on defining of computer-mediated communication. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 3 (1). Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.december. com/cmc/mag/1997/jan/december.html. Delahoussaye, M. (2002). The perfect learner. Training 39(5), 28-36. Derrick, E.; Balci, O. & Nance, R. (1989) A comparison of selected conceptual frameworks for simulation modeling. Proceedings of the 1989 Winter Simulation Conference. E. MacNair, K. Musselman, P, Heidelberger (Eds.), 711-718. Piscataway, New Jersey: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Howell, N., Soumitra S. Ghosh, Eoin Fahy, and Laurence. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education, by John Dewey. New York, NY: MacMillan. Diaz, D. (2000, March). Carving a New Path for Distance Education Research. The Technology Source. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp? show= article&id=648.
443 Diaz, D. & Cartnal, R. (1999). Students' learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-campus. College Teaching 47(4), 130-135. Dittman, A. (1987). The whole of body movement in communication. In A.W. Siegman, & S. Feldstein (Eds.) Nonverbal behavior and communication, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dommel, H. and Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J. (1997). Floor control for multimedia conferencing and collaboration. In Multimedia Systems, 5(1), January, 23-38. Dorwick, K. (2004). A Brief introduction to learning styles. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.uic.edu/depts/oaa/spec_prog/ iss/ls/ls.pdf/. Dourish, P. (1999). Embodied Interaction: Exploring the Foundations of a New Approach to HCI. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: www.ics.uci.edu/~jpd/embodied/ embodied99.pdf Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. A Bradford Book. The MIT Press. Draper, S. (2003). Learning styles (notes). Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www. psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/lstyles.html. Draper, S., & Norman, D. (1985). Software engineering for user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Engineering, Orlando, FL. Driscoll, A. (1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Duchowski, A. (2002). A Breadth-First Survey of Eye Tracking Applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers (BRMIC), 34 (4): 455-470. Duncan, L., Brown, W., Esposito, C., Holmback, H., & Xue, P. (1999, March). Enhancing virtual maintenance environments with speech understanding. In The Boeing Mathematics and Computing Technology TechNet (Technical Report TECHNET-9903), Seattle, WA. Dunn, R. (1990). Understanding the Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model and the need for individual diagnosis and prescription. Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities, 6, 223-247. Dunn, R. (1993). Teaching Gifted Adolescents through their learning style strengths. In R. Dunn (Ed.) Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents (pp.3767) Westport, CT: Praeger.
444
Dunn, R., Griggs, S., Olson, J., Gorman, B, & Beasly, M. (1995). A meta analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model. Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 351-366. Eden, H. (2002). Getting in on the (Inter)Action: Exploring Affordances for Collaborative Learning in a Context of Informed Participation. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings CSCL 2002 (pp. 399-407). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ekman, P. (1997). What the face reveals: basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding systems (FACS). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49-98. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1984). Unmasking the Face. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Ekman, P. (2002). Facial action coding system. Salt Lake City, UT: A Human Face. Ellis, T. (2001). Animating to improve learning: a model for studying multimedia effectiveness. Proceedings of the 31th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno, NV. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http:// fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2001/papers/1054.pdf/. Epstein, W. (1980). Direct perception or mediated perception: a comparison of rival viewpoints. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 384-385. Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: the social and cognitive ecology of teacherstudent interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, Learning and Schooling (pp.29-63). New York: Cambridge University Press. Essaka, L. (2001). Choosing an appropriate Virtual learning Environment (VLE) for UMIST, Information System Department, UMIST, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Falk, J. & Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Faraday, P., & Sutcliffe, A. (1996, November). An empirical study of attending and comprehending multimedia presentations. ACM Multimedia, 4th Multimedia Conference, (pp. 265-275), Boston, MA.
445 Faraday, P., & Sutcliffe, A. (1997, March). Designing effective multimedia presentations. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 97 (pp. 272-279), Atlanta, GA. Fasel, B., & Luettin, J. (2003). Automatic Facial Expression Analysis: A Survey, Pattern Recognition, 36, 259-275. Faulkneur, C. (1998). The essense of Human-Computer Interaction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Felder, R. & Henriques, E. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. In Foreign Language Annals, 28, No. 1, 1995, pp.21-31, North Carolina, USA. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/ FLAnnals.pdf/. Felder, R. & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674. Fieser, J. (1996). The Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/percept.htm. Fisher, B., Fels, S., McLean, K., Munzner, T, & Rensink, R. (2003). Design of multimodal media systems. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from http://www.icics.ubc.ca/hci/multimodal/ Flach, J. (1995). The ecology of human machine systems: A personal history. In J. Flach, P. Hancock, J. Caird, & K. Vicente (Eds.), Global perspectives on the ecology of humanmachine systems (pp. 1-13). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Flanders, N. (1966). Interaction Analysis in the Classroom: A Manual for Observers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Flavell, J., Miller, P., & Miller S. (1999). Desenvolvimento cognitivo. Brazil: Artes Médicas Sul. Fleming, N. (Ed.) (1995a). VARK – A resource pack for students and teachers. New Zeeland:.Lincoln University. Fleming, N. (1995b, July). VARK – I‟m different; not dumb: modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In Annual conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Australia. Flusser, V. (1999). The shape of things. London:, UK: Reaktion Books. Forlizzi, J., & Ford, S. (2000). The building blocks of experience: An early framework for interaction designers. DIS‟00, New York, NY.
446
Foster, M. (1995). Talking that talk: the language of control, curriculum and critique. Linguistics and Education, 7, 129-150. Fouskas, K., Pateli, A., Spinellis, D., & Virola, H. (2002, July). Applying contextual inquiry for capturing end-users behaviour requirements for mobile exhibition services. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mobile Business, Greece. Franks, A. & Jewitt, C. (2001). The meaning of action in learning and teaching. British Education Research Journal, 27(2), 201-218. Frey, L., Botan, C., Friedman, P., & Kreps, G. (1991). Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Friedman, K. (2000). Creating design knowledge: from research into practice. In IDATER Conference Proceedings. Loughborough, England: Loughborough. Last Retrieved, April 15, 2006 from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/idater/downloads00/ friedman2000.pdf. Friesen, N. (2004, August). Learning Objects and Standards: Pedagogical Neutrality and Engagement. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 1070-1071), Finland. Gagné, R. (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange, 3, 1-8. Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th edition). New York, NY: Holt, Renehart & Winston. Gagné, R.& Glaser, R. (1987). Foundations in Learning Research. In R. Gagné (Ed.) Instructional Technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gagné, R. & Medsker, K. (1996). The Conditions of Learning Training Applications. Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company. Gaver, W. (1991, April). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of CHI‟91, New Orleans, LA. Gaver, W. (1992, November). The affordances of media spaces for collaboration. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Canada Gavrila, D. (1999). The visual analysis of human movement. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 73(1), 82-98.
447 Gee, J. (1989). Two styles of narrative construction and their linguistic and educational implications. Discourse Processes, 19, 57-73. Gee, J. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. United Kingdom: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gibbon, D., Mertins, I., & Moore, R. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of multimodal and spoken dialogue systems: resources, terminology and product evaluation. Boston, MA: Kluwer. Gibson, J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Gibson, J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting and Knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gibson, J. (1982). A Preliminary description and classification of affordances. In E. Reed & R. Jones (Eds.) Reasons for Realism. Chapter 4.9, Part II. pp. 403 - 406. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Available Online. Last retrieved September 19, 2006, from: http://huwi.org/gibson/prelim.php. Gibson, J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Givens, D. (2002). The nonverbal dictionary of gestures, signs and body language cues. Spokane, WA: Center for Nonverbal Studies Press. Godleski, E. (1984). Learning style compatibility of engineering students and faculty. Proceedings, Annual Frontiers in Education Conference (p. 362). ASEE/IEEE, Philadelphia, PA. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Golbeck, J (2002). Attention and memory. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/fall2002/cmsc838s/tichi/attention.html. Goldin-Meadow, S., Kim, S., & Singer, M. (1999). What the teacher‟s hands tell the student‟s mind about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 720-730.
448 Goodwin, C. (2000a). Practices of Seeing, Visual Analysis: An Ethnomethodological Approach. In T. van Leeuwen, & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 157-182). United Kingdom: Sage. Goodwin, C. (2000b). Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489-522. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.sscnet. ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/00act_body.pdf Goodwin, C. (2003). The Semiotic Body in its Environment. In J. Coupland, & R.Gwyn (Eds.). Discourses of the Body (pp. 19-42), New York, NY: Palgrave/Macmillan. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/03sem_body.pdf. Granström, B., House, D., & Karlsson, I. (Eds.) (2002). Multimodality in language and speech systems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002. Grasha, A. (1990). Using traditional versus naturalistic approaches to assessing learning styles in college teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 1, 23-38. Gravett, S. (2001). Adult learning: Designing and implementing learning events – a dialogic approach. South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers. Gredler, M. (2005). Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice (5th Edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Green, J. & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations – a sociolinguistic ethnography. In J. Green, & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and Language in Education Settings (pp. 161-205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Greeno, J., Collins, A, & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner, & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Gregorc, A. (1982). Gregorc Style Delineator. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates, Inc. Gregorc, A. (1985a). Inside styles, beyond the basics. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates. Gregorc, A. (1985b). An Adult‟s Guide to Style. Maynard, M.E: n.p. Gregory, J. (2000, July). Activity Theory in a “Trading Zone” for Design Research and Practice. In Proceedings of Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the Future, International Conference, France. Griffin, E. (1997). A First Look at Communication Theory (3rd Edition), New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
449
Guerrero, L., Devito, J.A., & Hecht, M.L. (1999). The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Guild, P., & Garger, S. (1998). Marching to different drummers. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Deve (2nd edition), Alexandria, VA. Gumperz, J. & Herasimchuk, E. (1975). The conversational analysis of social meaning: a study of classroom interaction. In M. Sanches, & B. Blount (Eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use (pp. 81-115). New York, NY: Academic Press. Gutierrez, F., & Prieto, D. (1994). A mediação Pedagógica, educação a distância alternativa. [The pedagogical mediation, alternative distance education]. Brazil: Papirus. Gutierrez, M., Thalmann, D., Vexo, F., Moccozet, L., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Mortara, M., and Spagnuolo, M.. (2005, March). An Ontology of Virtual Humans: incorporating semantics into human shapes (pp. 57-67), Workshop towards Semantic Virtual Environments, SVE05, Switzerland. Haber, R. (1985). Perception: A one-hundred-year perspective. In S. Koch (Ed.), A century of psychology as science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 250-281. Hall, E. (1966) The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Doubleday. Hall, E. (1968). “Proxemics.” Current Anthropology, 9: 83-108. Hall, E. (1978). “Human Needs for Autonomy and Dependence in Technological Environments: Review and Commentary.” In Brent R. RUBIN (ed.). Communication Yearbook II. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press, pp. 23-28. Hall, E. (1992). An Anthropology of Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books. Hallahan, K. (1997) The consequences of Mass Communication: Cultural and critical perspectives on Mass Communication. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Halliday, M. (1978) Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold. Hämäläinen, P. & Hoysniemi, J. (2002, October). QuiQui's Giant Bounce - A computer vision and hearing based user interface for flying. The 7th ERCIM Workshop User Interfaces for All, France.
450 Harrison, S. & Dourish, P. (1996). Re–Place–ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, pp. 67–76. Hartson, H. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://research.cs.vt.edu/usability/publications/Hartson%20%20affordances%20-%20BIT.pdf Haslett, B. (1987). Communication: Strategy action in context. New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates. Heath, C. & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analysing Interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In T. May (Ed.) Qualitative Research in Action. London: Sage, 99-121. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground line control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1, 69-94. Heeter, C. (1992). Being There: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262-271. Heft (1996). The Ecological Approach to Navigation: A Gibsonian Perspective. In: J. Portugali (Ed.), The Construction of Cognitive Maps. The GeoJournal Library 32, pp. 105-132, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London. Henze, N. & Nejdl, W. (1999, May). Adaptivity in the KBS-Hyerbook System”. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Adaptive Systems and User Modeling on the WWW, ASUM99, 8th International World Wide Web Conference, Canada. Hergenhahn, B., & Olson. M. (2005). An introduction to theories of learning (7th edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Herrmann, N. (1990). The creative brain. Lake Lure, NC: Brain Books. Herrmann, N. (1996). The whole brain business book. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Herring, S. (2003) .Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hickey, D. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 175-193.
451 Hicks, D. (1996). Contextual inquiries: A discourse oriented study of classroom learning. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, Learning and Schooling. (pp. 104-144). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hindus, D., Ackerman, M., Mainwaring, S., & Starr, B. (1996). Thunderwire: A field study of an audio-only media space (pp. 238-247). In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW'96, Boston, MA. Hinton, H.; Gonzalez, R.; Tedder, L.; Karandikar, S.; Behl, H.; Smith, P.; Wilbanks, J.; Humphrey, J.; Gordon, M.; & Lightner, M. (2000). A Technology-enhanced learning environment for a graduate/undergraduate course on optical fiber Communications. In 30th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 18-21, Kansas City, MO. Hirst, D. & Di Cristo, A. (Eds.) (1998). Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Hoc, J., Cacciabue, P., Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) (1995). Expertise and Technology: Cognition & Human-Computer Cooperation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance Education: International Perspectives (p. 114-122). New York, NY: St. Martin's Press. Horvitz, E., Kadie, C., Paek, T., & Hovel, D. (2003). Model of attention in computing and communication: From principles to applications. Communications of the ACM, 46(3), 52-59. Howell, S., Williams, P., & Lindsay, N. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html Huels, F. (2005). An evening of grounded theory: Teaching process through demonstration and simulation. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 328-338. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR10-2/huehls.pdf/. Hutchins, E. (1994). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hutchins, E. (1999). Cognitive Artifacts. In Wilson, R. A. and Keil, F. C. (Eds.) The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 126-128), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hutchins, E. (2001). Distributed Cognition. In N.Smelser and P. Baltes (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/Anthro179a/ DistributedCognition.pdf
452
Hutchins, E. & Palen, L. (1997). Constructing Meaning from Space, Gesture, and Speech. In L. B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.) Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 23-40) Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Ibánez, R. (1996). O material impresso no ensino a distância [The printed material in distance education]. Brazil: Universidade Castelo Branco. Ijsselsteijn, W., & Riva, G. (2003). Being There: The experience of presence in mediated environments. In: Riva, G., Davide, F., & IJsselsteijn, W.A. (Eds.), Being There Concepts, Effects and Measurements of User Presence in Synthetic Environments (pp. 3-16), Amsterdam: IOS Press. Irvine, M. (2005). Media Theory and Semiotics: Key Terms. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/TheoryKeyTerms.html. InSORS Integrated Communications (2007). Iocom. Last Retrieved September 27, 2007 from http://www.insors.com/io/index.html. Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (1996). Telecommunications: Glossary of telecommunication terms. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.its. bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/. Jaimes, A. & Sebe, N. (2005). Multimodal Human Computer Interaction: A Survey. In Proceedings ICCV-HCI‟05 (pp.1-15), Beijing, China. Jakobson, R. (1963). Essais de linguitique générale [Essays of general linguistics]. France: Minuit. Jensen, E. (1995). The learning brain. Del Mar, CA: The Brain Store. Jensen, E. (1998). Introduction to brain compatible learning. Del Mar, CA: Turning Point. Jensen, E. (2000). Brain-Based Learning. San Diego, CA: Brain Store Incorporated. Jewitt, C. (2002). The move from page to screen: the multimodal reshaping of school English. Visual Communication, 1(2), 171-195. Jewitt, C. (2004a). Knowledge, literacy and learning: Multimodality and new technologies. United Kingdom: RoutledgeFalmer.
453 Jewitt, C. (2004b). Multimodality and new communication technologies. In P. Levine, & R. Scollon, (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. (pp. 184-195). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Jewitt, C. (2005). Classrooms and the design of pedagogical discourse: A multimodal approach. Culture & Psychology, Sage Publications, 11(3), 309-320. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2000). Teaching and learning: Beyond language. Teaching education. December, 11(3), 327-341. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001a). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of the classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5-18. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001b). Multimodal teaching and learning: Rethorics of the science classroom. United Kingdom: Continuum. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (Eds.) (2003). Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1997). Sociocultural Approaches to Learning and Development: A Vygotskian Framework. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://webpages.charter.net/schmolze1/vygotsky/john steiner.html Johnson, B. & Christensen, L.. (2003). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Jokinen, K. (2000). Learning Dialogue Systems. In L. Dybkjaer (Ed.) LREC 2000 Workshop: From Spoken Dialogue to Full Natural Interactive Dialogue – Theory, Empirical Analysis and Evaluation (pp. 13-17), Athens. Jokinen, K., & Raike, A. (2003, September). Multimodality - technology, visions and demands for the future. In the 1st Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Interfaces, Copenhagen. Jonassen, D., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlaum Associates.
454
Jones, R. (2003, August). „Inter-activity‟: How new media can help us understand old media. In Proceedings of the XVIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ICHL‟03, Copenhagen.
Jönsson, B., Malmborg, L., Svensk, A., Anderberg, P., Brattberg, G., Breidegard, B., et al. (2004). Situated research and design for everyday life (Certec Report, LTH Number 2:2004), Malmö University, Sweeden.
Jordan, T.; Raubal, M., Gartrell, B.; and Egenhofer, M. (1998). An Affordance-Based Model of Place in GIS. in: 8th Int. Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, SDH'98, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 98-109. Judson, I. (2002). AccessGrid Node Minimum Requirements. Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, Technical Memorandum 257. Last Retrieved September 27, 2007 from ftp://info.mcs.anl.gov/pub/tech_reports/reports/TM257.pdf. Karagiannidis, C., Sampson, D., & Cardinali, F. (2001). Integrating adaptive educational content into different courses and curricula. In Educational Technology & Society, 4 (3), 37-44. Kavale, K. & Forness, S. (1987). Style over substance: Assessing the effectiveness of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54, 228-239. Keefe, J. (1979). Student learning styles. Reston, VA, USA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please Understand Me. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Co. Keller, E. (Ed.) (1994). Fundamentals of speech synthesis and speech recognition: basic concepts, state of the art and future challenges. Chichester, UK: John Wiley Kemp, J., Morrison, G., & ROSS, S. (1998). Designing effective instruction (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22-63. Kendon, A. (1978). Looking in conversation and the regulation of turns at talk: a comment on the papers of G. Beattie and D.Rutter et al., British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 23-24.
455
Kendon, A. (1980). Gesticulation and Speech: two aspects of the Process of Utterance. In M.Key (Ed.) The relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication. The Netherlands: Mouton. Kendon, A. (1981). Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture: selections from Semiotica, Approaches to Semiotics (Vol.41). The Netherlands: Mouton and Co. Kendon, A. (1981). Geography of gesture, Semiotica, 37, 129-163. Kendon, A. (1996). An agenda for gesture studies. Semiotic Review of Books 7. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ srb/srb/gesture.html. Kendon A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Kendon, A. & Cook, M. (1969). The consistency of gaze patterns in social interaction British Journal of Psychology, 60, 481-494. King, F., Young, M., Drivere-Richmond, K., & Schrader, P. (2001). Defining distance learning and distance education. Educational Technology Review, 9(1), 1-14. Kinsel, E., & Woodward, C. (2002, May). The Importance of Context in CMC Analysis. In International Symposium on Educational Conferencing, Canada. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8hWK3JGNPG0J:www.cde. athabascau.ca/ISEC2002/papers/kinswood.pdf+Kinsel+Woodward+2002+The+I mportance+of+Context+in+CMC+Analysis&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society, 4(3), 255283. Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (Eds.) (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Knapp, M.L. & Hall, J.A. (2001). Nonverbal communication in human action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kolb, D. (1984). Experimental Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
456 Krahmer, E., & Ummelen, N. (2004). Thinking about thinking aloud: A comparison of two verbal protocols for usability testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 105-117. Kraut, R., Fussell, S., Brennan, S., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding Effects of Proximity on Collaboration: Implications for Technologies to Support Remote Collaborative Work. In P. Hinds and S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work (pp. 137-162), Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. (2001, October). The social affordances of computersupported collaborative learning environments. In Proceedings of 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno, NV. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1). Last Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/ 5_1/kreijns.pdf. Kress, G. (2004). Reading Images: Multimodality, Representation and New Media. In IIID Conference, Expert Forum for Knowledge Presentation: Preparing for the Future of Knowledge Representation. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.knowledgepresentation.org/BuildingTheFuture/Kress2/Kress2.html. Kress, G. & van Leuween, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. United Kingdom: Arnold Press. Kress G., Jewitt C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: the rhetorics of the science classroom. United Kingdom: Continuum. Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Martins, I. (1998). A satellite view of language. Language Awareness 2-3, 69-89. Laanpere, M., Kikkas, K. & Põldoja, H. (2005). Pedagogical foundations of IVA Learning Management System. In: eLearning in Higher Education: Presentations from the EUDORA Intensive program ELHE during the summer school in Viljandi (pp. 143-154), Estonia 2004, Linz: Pädagogische Hochschule Linz. Lai, J., & Vergo, J. (1997). MedSpeak: Report Creation with Continuous Speech Recognition. Proceedings of CHI `97 (pp. 431-438), ACM Press, New York, NY. Laine, L. (2003, June). Is E-learning E-ffective for IT Training, Training & Development Magazine, 57(6), 55-60, Alexandria, VI. Landon, B. (2001). Online Educational Delivery Applications: A Web tool for comparative analysis. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.edutools.info.
457
Lanigan, R. (1995, October). Embodiment: Signs of life in the self. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Musement to Meaning: Body and Mind at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America, San Antonio, TX. Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive Semantics. in: U. Eco, M. Santambrogio, and P. Violi (Eds.), Meaning and Mental Representations, (pp.119-154). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Lakhoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Larson, C. (2001). Persuation: Reception and responsibility (9th edition), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching – a framework for the effective use of educational technology, United Kingdom: Routledge. Laurillard, D. (1995). Multimedia and the changing experience of the learner. British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 179-189. Laurillard, D.; Stratfold, M.; Luckin, R.; Plowman, L.; & Taylor, J. (2000). Affordances for Learning in a Non-Linear Narrative Medium. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Last retrieved August 14, 2006, from: http://wwwjime.open.ac.uk/00/2/index.html. Laurillard, D., Stratfold, M., Luckin, R., Plowman, L., & Taylor, J. (2000). Affordances for learning in nonlinear narrative medium. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2000(2). Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://wwwjime.open.ac.uk/00/ 2/laurillard-00-2-paper.html Laurillard, D., & Taylor, J. (1994). Designing the stepping stones: An evaluation of interactive media in the classroom. Journal of Educational Television, 20(3), 169-183. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge , MA : Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Leaver, B. (1997). Teaching the whole class. Dubuque, Iowa, USA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. Leander, K. (2002). Silencing in classroom interaction: Producing and relating social spaces. Discourse Processes, 34(2), 193-235.
458
Lemke J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin, & R.Veel (Eds.), Reading Science: critical and functional perspectives on scientific discourse. United Kingdom: Routledge. Lee, K. (1996). Introduction. Intelligence and Multimodality in Multimedia Interfaces: Research and Applications. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Lemercier, C., & Tricot, A. (2003). Multimedia, comprehension and the psychology of learning: A review of four cognitive models. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/andre.tricot/LemercierTricot _Multimedia.pdf Levine, P. & Scollon, R. (Eds.) (2004). Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Litwin, E. (org.) (2001). Educação a distância: temas para o debate de uma nova agenda educativa [Distance education: topics for a debate regarding a new educational agenda]. Brazil: Editora Artmed. Lohse, J. (1991). A cognitive model for the perception and understanding of graphs. In ACM1991, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan. Loehr, D. (2004). Gesture and Intonation. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Lombard, M. & Ditton, T. (1997). At The heart of all: The Concept of presence. Temple University: Department of Broadcasting, Telecommunications & Mass Media, Philadelphia, PA, also in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(2), University of Southern California, CA, USA, September. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://wwww.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html Lucena, C., Fuks, H., Milidiú, R., Macedo, L., Santos, N., Laufer, C., et al. (2001). AulaNet: An environment for the development and maintenance of courses on the Web. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.eduweb.com.br/paper/paper.htm. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J. &. Heath, C. (Eds.) (2000). Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing Systems Design. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Luria, A. (1961). The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior (J. Tizard, Trans.). New York, NY: Liveright. Luria, A. (1976). Cognitive Development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
459 Luria, A. (1979). The Making of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Lynch, J. (2002). What can we learn from McLuhan? Electronic communication technologies and the future of schooling. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/lyn02031.htm. Mackay, W. (1999). Media spaces: Environments for informal multimedia interaction. In M. Beaudouin-Lafon (Ed.), Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Trends in Software Series. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Mandler, J. (1984). Stories, Scripts and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Manner, B. (2001). Learning styles and multiple intelligences in students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(6), 390-394. Marcel, A. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15(2), 197-237. Marcel, S. (2002). Gestures for Multi-Model Interfaces: A Review. IDIAP-RR 34, IDIAP. Mark, D. and Frank, A. (1996). Experiential and Formal Models of Geographic Space. Environment and Planning B 23: 3-24. Martins, I.; Gouvea, G. & Piccinini, C. (2005). Aprendendo com imagens. Ciência e Cultura, 57(4), 38-40. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://cienciaecultura.bvs.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S000967252005000400021&lng=en&nrm=iso>. ISSN 0009-6725. Maushak N., Chen H., Martin L., Shaw B. & Unfred D. (2001). Distance education: looking beyond „no significant difference‟. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(2), 119-140. Mayer, R. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19. Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. (2003). Theories of learning and their application to technology. In H. O‟Neil, Jr., & R. Perez, (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A learning view (pp. 127-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Mayer, R., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
460
McArthur, D. (1982). Computer vision and perceptual psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 283-309. McDermott, R.; Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24, 245-275. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000, May). "Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept," proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000, Canada. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.graphicsinterface.org/cgibin/DownloadPaper?name=2000/177/PDF paper177.pdf McKain-Fernández, L. (1999). Communication Theory. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.gsu.edu/~mstswh/courses/it7000/papers/com munic.htm/. McLoughlin, C. (1999). The Implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. Australia, 15(3), 222-241. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet15/ mcloughlin.html/. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York: McGraw Hill. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. McNeill, D. (2000). Language and gesture: Window into thought and action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Merola, G. & Poggi, I. (2003, April). Multimodality and gestures in the teacher's communication. In A. Camurri, & G. Volpe (Eds.), Gesture-Based Communication in Human-Computer Interaction, 5th International Gesture Workshop, GW 2003, Italy. Messick, S. (1984). “The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice”. Educational Psychologists, 19, 59-74. Messick, S. (1994). “The matter of style: Manifestations of personality in cognition, learning, and teaching”. Educational Psychologist, 29, 121-136.
Mills, K. (2003). Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://w3.antd.nist.gov/~mills/papers/120008706_ELIS_ Batch6_R1.pdf
461
Milner, A. & Goodale, M. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. In Educational Psychology Review, Special Issue on Interactive Learning Environments: Contemporary Issues and Trends, 19(3), 309–326. Mulder, A. (1996). Hand gestures for HCI (Hand Centered Studies of Human Movement Project, Technical Report), Canada: Simon Fraser University. Munari, B. (1997). Design e Comunicação Visual [Design and Visual Communication].Brazil: Martins Fontes. Munck, A. & Mayer, P. (2000). Designing Human Protocols: A model of human collaboration in the light of technology. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.lmunck.com/articles/HumanComputerProtocols.pdf. Moore, M. (1983). On a theory of independent study. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.) Distance Education International Perspectives (pp. 68-94). United Kingdom: Croom Helm. Moore, M. (1989). Ediorial: Three types of interaction. The American Jornal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (1999). Cognitive principle s of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology. Review, 19 (3), 235-238. Morgan, C., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), 96-108. Moura, H. (2005a). Adaptive e-Learning Environment Design: Understanding Learners‟ Differences. In Proceedings of SALT Conference „05, Arlington, Washington, DC. Moura, H. (2005b). Discourse & technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. [Review of LeVine & Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis]. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(3), 329-331. Moura, H. (2006a). Analyzing multimodal interaction within a graduate Design classroom: Building a methodological framework. Visible Language Journal, 40(3), 270-291.
462 Moura, H. (2006b). Adaptive e-Learning Environment Design. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 10, 1-22. Moura, H.; Fahnstrom, D. & Prygrocki, G. (2007). ThinkeringSpaces: A New Genre of Exploratory Environments for Kids. In Educational Facility Planner, Cefpi, Educational Trends and Learning Environments, 42(1), 3-7. Murray, I. & Arnott, J. (1993, February). "Toward the simulation of emotion in synthetic speech: A review of the literature on human vocal emotion", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93(2), 1097-1108. Myers, I.. & Briggs, K. (1976). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Naps, T., Rößling, G., Almstrum, V., Dann, W., Fleischer, R., Hundhausen, C., et al. (2003, June). Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. ACM SIGSE‟03, Bulletin 35 (2), 131-152. Neal, J. (1990). Intelligent Multi-Media Integrated Interface Project. SUNY Buffalo (RADC Technical Report TR-90-128), Buffalo, NY. Neath, I. (1998). Human Memory. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole. Neisser, U. (1994). Multiple systems: A new approach to cognitive theory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6(3), 225-241. Norman, D. (1969). Memory and Attention: an introduction to human information processing. United Kingdom: Wiley & Sons. Norman, D. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York, NY: Basic Books. Norman, D. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Norman, D. (1998). The invisible computer, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Norman, D. (1999). Affordances, Conventions and Design, Interactions, 6(3), 38-43. Norman, D. (2002). Affordances and Design. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances-and-design.html. Norris, S. (2002, April). The Orchestration of Identities through Multiple Modes. In the Sociolinguistics Symposium 14, Gent, Belgium Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. New York, NY: Routledge.
463 Noyes, J. & Baber, C. (1999). User-centred design of systems. United Kingdom: Springer. Oblinger, D. (2004). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. An NLII white paper. Last retrieved September 21, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/ pdf/NLI0447.pdf. Oblinger, D. (Ed.) (2006). Learning Spaces. Learning Spaces By Diana G. Oblinger, Editor EDUCAUSE e-Book, 444 pages. Last retrieved September 15, 2007, from: http:// www.educause.edu/learningspaces/. Oblinger, D. (2006). Space as a Change Agent. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. EDUCAUSE e-book: 1.2-1.4. Last retrieved September 15, 2007, from: http://www. educause.edu/learningspaces/. Oblinger, D., Barone, C., & Hawkins, B. (2001). Distributed education and its challenges: An overview. American Council on Education (ACE), Washington, DC. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning01.pdf. Oliver, M. & Conole, G. (1999). Assessing and enhancing quality using toolkits, Effects Report No. 14. Ong, W. (1988). Before Textuality: Orality and Interpretation. Oral Tradition 3, 259269. Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E., & Kankainen, T. (2003). Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 7, 125-134. Oviatt, S. (2003). Multimodal interfaces. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, J. Jacko and A. Sears, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Mahwah, NJ, 14, 286-304. Oviatt, S., Coulston, R., & Lunsford, R. (2004, October). When do we interact multimodally? Cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns. ICMI‟04, State College, Pennsylvania, PA. Oviatt, S., Lunsford, R., & Coulston, R. (2005, April). Individual differences in multimodal integration patterns: What are they and why do they exist? CHI05, Portland, OR. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every foreign language teacher should know. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
464 Oxford, R., Ehrman, M., & Lavine, R. (1991). Style Wars: teacher-student style conflicts in the language classroom. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Challenges in the 1990‟s for College Foreign Language Programs. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Paramythis, A., & Loidl-Reisinger, S. (2003, November). Adaptive learning environments and e-learning standards. In R. Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on e-Learning, ECEL2003 (pp. 369-379), Glasgow, Scotland Academic Conferences International Reading. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.fim.unilinz.ac.at/Publications/Paramythis/Adaptive_Learning_Environments_eLearning _Standards.pdf/. Parker, K. (2000). Art, Science and the Importance of Aesthetics in Instructional Design. Unpublished paper. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.coedu.usf. edu/ itphdsem/kp100.pdf Parks, S., Huot, D., Hamers, J., & Lemonnier, F. (2003). Crossing boundaries: Multimedia technology and pedagogical innovation in a high school class. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 28-45. Parril, F. & Sweetser, E. (2004). What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture analysis and transcription. In Gesture, 4(2), 197-219. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Pata, K. (2007). How to write an affordance description? February 1st, 2007. Blog entrance. Last retrieved September 23, 2006, from: http://tihane.wordpress.com/ 2007/02/01/how-to-write-an-affordance-description/. Pata, K., Laanpere, M. (2007). Using Pedagogical Activity patterns for Analysing the Learning Affordances of Social Software. ECER 2007, September, Ghent, Belgium. Pedro, R. (1996). Cognição e Tecnologia: híbridos sob o signo do artifício [Cognition and technology: hybrids under the sign of the artificial]. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, UFRJ, Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Escola de Comunicação, Brazil. Perriault, J. (1996). La communication ou savoir à distance [Distance communication or
465 knowledge], Paris: Harmattan. Perry, J. (2003). Learning and Cognition in Education (Instructor notes on the Meaningful reception learning & schema theory). Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://education.indiana.edu/~p540/webcourse/schema.html. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education (Report from The Institute for Higher Education Policy). Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.ihep.com/ PUB.htm/. Piaget, J. (1926). Judgment and reasoning in the child. New York, NY: Harcourt. Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget‟s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael‟s manual of child psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1., pp. 703-732). New York, NY: Wiley. Piccinini, C. & Martins, I. (2003, August). Multimodal communication in the science classroom: an exercise of analysis. In Proceedings of Esera 2003 Research and Quality of Science Education Conference, The Netherlands. Piombo, C., Batatia, H. & Ayache, A. (2003). A Framework for adapting instruction to cognitive learning styles. The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT‟03. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/icalt/2003/1967/00/1967043 4.pdf/. Pinto, J. (1992). Psicologia da Aprendizagem. Concepções, Teorias e Processos. Portugal: Instituto do Emprego e Formação Profissional. Plowman, L., Luckin, R., Laurillard, D., Stratfold, M., & Taylor, J. (1999). Designing multimedia for learning: narrative guidance and narrative construction . Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: The Chi Is The Limit (pp. 310-317). Pittsburgh, PA. Poggenpohl, Sharon. 2000. “Constructing Knowledge of Design, part 2: Questions – An Approach to Design Research.” In Doctoral Education in Design, Foundations for the Future, edited by D. Durling and K. Friedman. Staffordshire, UK: Staffordshire University Press. Poggi, I. (2002). Towards the alphabet and lexicon of gesture, gaze and touch. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.semioticon.com/virtuals/talks/geyboui41.pdf. Polyvision (2006). Thunder Virtual Flip Chart System. Last Retrieved September 27, 2007 from http://www.polyvision.com/products/thunder.asp.
466 Poulisse, N., (1989). The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch Learners of English, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1984). On the use of compensatory strategies in second language performance. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 8, 70105. Poyatos, F. (1983). New perspectives in nonverbal communiation studies: Cultural anthropology, social psychology, linguistics, literature and semiotics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Poyatos, F. (Ed.) (1988). Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication. Canada: Hogrefe. Poyatos, F. (2002). Nonverbal communication across disciplines. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Quek, F, McNeill, D., Bryll, R., Duncan, S., Ma, X., Kirbas, C., et al (2002, September). Multimodal human discourse: Gesture and speech. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9(3), 171-193. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. Hawkins, J. Wiemann, and S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes (pp. 110-134), Beverly Hills, LA: Sage. Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction. New York: North-Holland. Rasmussen, J. and Vicente, K. (1989). Rasmussen, J. & Vicente, K. J. (1989). Coping with human errors through system design: Implications for ecological interface design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31, 517-534. Rasmussen, K. (1998). Hypermedia and learning styles: can performance be influenced? Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 291-308. Raubal, M. and Frank, A. (1999). Interoperability of data access: Modeling people‟s interaction processes with affordances. Institute for Geo-information, Technical University of Vienna, Austria. Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1997). Towards the categorization of cognitive styles and learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 5-29. Reeves, L., Lai, J., Larson, J., Ovita, S., Baalaji, T., Buisine, S., et al. (2004). Guidelines for multimodal user interface design. Communications of the ACM, 47(1).
467 Rice, R. (1992). Task analyzability, use of new medium and effectiveness: A Multi-site exploration of media richness. Organization Science, 3(4), 475-500. Richmond, V.P., McCrosky, J.C. (1999). Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations, 4th Edition, Boston, Allyn & Bacon. Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3-4), 193-215. Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style and learning from multimedia materials in 11-year children. British Journal of Educational Technology. England, 30(1), 43-59. Riva, G. (2001). Virtual Reality as communication tool: a socio-cognitive analysis. In G. Riva and F. Davide (Eds.), Communications Through Virtual Technology: Identity Community and Technology in the Internet Age. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Riva, G. (2002). The Socio-cognitive Psychology of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Present and Future of Technology-Based Interactions. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 581-598. Riva, G., Davide, F., & Ijsselsteijn, W. (2003). Being there: Concepts, effects and measurements of user presence in synthetic environments. In Emerging Communication: Studies on New Technologies and Practices in Communication, Volume 5, Amsterdam: IOS Press. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.vepsy.com/communication/ volume5.html Riva, G. & Galimberti, C. (1998). Computer-mediated communication: identity and social interaction in an electronic environment. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs 124 (pp. 434-464). Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.heldref.org/html/body_mono.html/. Roda, C. & Thomas, J. (2003). Digital Interactivity. Introduction to the first international workshop; Proceedings International Symposium on Information and Communication Technologies 2003 (pp.399-402), Ireland: Trinity College, Computer Science Press. Rodriguez, O.; Chen, S.; Shi, H.; & Shang, Y. (2002, May). “Open learning objects: The case for inner metadata”. In Proceedings of the 11th World Wide Web Conference (WWW2002), Honolulu, HI. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www2002.org/CDROM/alternate/ 693/. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. NY: Oxford University Press.
468 Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. NY: Oxford University Press. Rohlfing, K., Rehm, M., & Goecke, K. (2003). Situatedness: The Interplay between Context(s) and Situation. In: Journal of Cognition and Culture 3 (2), 132-157. Rohrer, T. (1998, October). Multimodal communication and conceptual metaphor in computer science pedagogy: When is a good metaphor worth more than all the bells and whistles? In Proceedings of The Second Swedish Symposium on Multimodal Communication, Sweden. Rostvall, A. & West, T. (2005). Theoretical and methodological perspectives on designing video studies of interaction. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(4). Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm. Rothkegel, A. (1998, April). Interaction and Interactivity in Hypermedia. In Dialogue Analysis and the Mass Media: Proceedings of the International Conference. Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Roushanzamir, S. (2004). Theories of Distance Learning meet Theories of Mediated (Mass) Communication . AECT 2004, Distance Learning Division, Chicago, IL. Rudd, T, Gifford, C, Morrison, J and Facer, K. (2006). What if...? Re-imagining Learning Spaces. Bristol: Futurelab. Last retrieved October 2, 2006, from: http://www. futurelab.org.uk/openingeducation. Ruesch, J. (1972). Semiotic Approaches to Human Relations. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Approaches to Semiotics No. 25, Mouton de Gruyter, Germany. Ruesch, J. & Kees, W. (1956). Nonverbal communication; notes on the visual perception of human relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ruesch, J., & Prestwood, A. (1949). Anxiety: Its initiation, communication and interpersonal management. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 62, 527-550. Ruesch, J. & Prestwood, A. (1950). Communication and bodily disease: A study of vasopastic conditions. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ruesch, J. & Batson, G. (1951). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B.Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading and Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
469 Rumetshofer, H., & WÖß, W. (2003). An approach for adaptable learning systems with respect to psychological aspects. SAC2003, 558-563. Russel, T. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina University. Ryder, M., & Wilson, B. (1996, February). Affordances and constraints of the Internet for learning and instruction. In Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications Technology, AECT‟ 96, Indianapolis, IN. Saba, F. (Ed.). (2000). Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Distance Education Report, 4(13), p. 4. Sallnäs, E. (2004). Effects of modality on social presence, presence and performance in collaborative virtual environments. Ph.D. thesis, TRITA-NA-0404. NADA, KTH, Sweden. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.lib.kth.se/Sammanfattningar/sallnas040324.pdf. Salomon, G. (Ed.) (1993). „Distributed cognitions – psychological and educational considerations‟, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Savidis, A., Paramythis, A., Akoumianakis, D., & Stephanidis, C. (1997). Designing user-adapted interfaces. DIS‟97, The Netherlands. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H. (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. (2003). The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Schomaker, L., Nijtmans, J., Camurri, A., Lavagetto, F., Morasso, P., Benoît, C., GuiardMarigny A., Le Goff B., Robert-Ribes J., Adjoudani A., Defee I., Munch S., Hartung K. and Blauert J (1997). A taxonomy of multimodal interaction in the human information processing system. Technical report, ESPRIT BRA, No. 8579. Schmeck, R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York, USA: Plenum Press. Schneider, D. (2003, December). Conception and implementation of rich pedagogical scenarios through collaborative portal sites: clear focus and fuzzy edges. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Open and Online Learning, University of Mauritius, Mauritius. Schnotz, W. (1993). On the relation between dual coding and mental models in graphics comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 3, 247-249.
470 Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and instruction, 13, 141-156. Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories (4th edition). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Shannon, C. (1949). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Tech. Journal, 27, 379-423, 623-656. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html. Sharples, M. (2003). Disruptive Devices: Mobile Technology for Conversational Learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 12, 5/6, pp. 504-520. Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in Distance Learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (4), 337-365. Shih, Y. & Mills, D. (2007). Setting the New Standard with Mobile Computing in Online Learning. In International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , v. 8, n.2, June. Capella University, USA. Last retrieved from the Internet, September 15, 2007: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/361/929. Shikler, T., Kaliouby, R., & Robison, P. (2004, March). Design challenges in multi modal inference systems for human computer interaction. In Proceedings of 2nd Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access And Assistive Technology, CWUAAT / 5th Cambridge Workshop on Rehabilitation Robotics, Designing A More Inclusive World, Fitzwilliam College, United Kingdom: University of Cambridge. Short, J. & Christie, B. (1976). The Social psychology of telecommunications. United Kingdom: Wiley. Showers, B. (1990). Aiming for Superior Room Instruction for All Children: A Comprehensive State Development Model. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 35-39. Shultz, J.; Florio, S., & Erickson, F. (1982). Where‟s the floor?: Aspects of social relationships in communication at home and at school. In P. Gilmore and A. Glatthorn (Eds.). Children in and out of school: Ethnography and Education (pp. 88-123). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Silver, H., Hanson, R., Strong, R., & Schwartz, P. (1996). Teaching Styles & Strategies (3rd edition), Woodbridge, NJ: The Thoughtful Education Press.
471
Smyth, K., & Buckner, K. (2004, November). Towards a theoretical framework for understanding the nature of networked learning. In Proceeding from The 3rd European Conference on E-learning, the Universite Paris Dauphine, France. Soloway, E.; Guzdial, M. & Hay, K. (1994). Learner-centered design: the challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1 (2), 36-47. Sousa, D. (1995). How the brain learns. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Sousa, D. (1997). How the brain learns. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Sousa, D. (1999). How the brain learns: new insights into the teaching/learning process. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Spitzberg, B. (2001). Mediated communication competence. In S. Morreale, B. Spitzberg, & K. Barge. Human communication: Motivation, knowledge and skills. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Stein, N. & Trabasso, T. (1982). Children‟s understanding of stories: A basis for moral judgment and dilemma resolution. In C. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Verbal processes in children (Vol. 2., p. 161-188), New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Stellwagen, J. (2001). A challenge to the learning style advocates. Clearing House, 74(5), 265-269. Sternberg, R. (2000). Psicologia cognitiva [Cognitive Psychology]. Brazil: Artes Médicas Sul. Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52(7), 700-712. Stone, D., Maxwell, S. & Keating, M. (2001, July). Bridging Research and Policy. Paper prepared for Bridging Research and Policy: an International Workshop, funded by the UK Department for International Development, United Kingdom: Warwick University, Radcliffe House. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of Human-Machine Communication. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
472 Suchman, L. (1995, May). Embodiment, materiality and lived experience. Oksnoen Symposium, Oksnoen, Norway. Suskie, L. (2002). Theories and instruments for identifying student learning styles. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://wwwnew.towson.edu/iact/teaching/Suskie LearningStyles Theoriesand Instruments.doc/. Sutcliffe, A., & Faraday, P. (1994, April). Designing presentation in multimedia interfaces. CHI‟94, Boston, MA. Sutton, L. (1999). Interaction. Refs. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc703/leah5.html. Swanson, L. (1995). Learning styles: A review of the literature. The Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B.Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 43, pp. 215-266). New York: Academic Press. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Thomas, M. (2003). Evaluating Instructional Potential: A new approach to the Evaluation of Digital Learning Objects. In Proceedings of the 2nd ATN Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Australia. Thorson, M.; Leigh, J.; Maajid, G.; Park, K.; Nayak, A.; Salva, P.; & Berry, S. (2002). AccessGrid-to-Go : Providing AccessGrid access on Personal Digital Assistants. Last Retrieved September 27, 2007 from www.evl.uic.edu/cavern/ papers/AG2GoFinal2002.pdf. Tian, Y.; Kanade, T.; and Cohn, J. (2003, October). Facial expression analysis. In S.Z. Li & A.K. Jain, Eds., Handbook of face recognition. New York, NY: Springer. Tuovinen, J. (2000, December). Optimizing student cognitive load in computer education. ACE2000, Australia. Turk, M.& Robertson, G. (2000). Perceptual User Interfaces. Communications of the ACM 43(3), 33-34. United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000–2001,
473 NCES 2003-017, Washington, DC. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Veltman, K. (1998). New media and transformations in knowledge. Refs. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.sumscorp.com/articles/art52.htm. Vicente, K. & Rasmussen, J. (1992). Ecological Interface Design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22, 589-606. Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (2001). Learning style awareness: A basis for developing teaching and learning strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5), Summer. Vicente, K. & J. Rasmussen (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22 (4), 589-606. Voges, A. (2005). An evaluative analysis of a whole brain learning program for adults. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pretoria, Department of Education, Pretoria, South Africa. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-08112005153748/unrestricted/00front.pdf. Vrasidas, C., & Glass, C. (2004). Online professional development for teachers, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, E. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29. Wahlster, W. (1993). Planning multimodal discourse. Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 95 – 96, Columbus, OH. Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23 , 3-43. Wandell, B. (1995). Foundations of vision. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc.
474 Warren, B. (1995). Constructing an econiche. In P.Flach, J. Hancock, J. Caird & K. Vicente (Eds.), Global perspectives on the ecology of human-machine systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Watson, B.; Kim, J.; McEneany, T.; Moher, T.; Hindo, C.; Gomez, L.; & Fransen, S. (2004). StorySpace: technology supporting reflection, expression, and discourse in classroom narrative. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 24(2), March-April, 13-15. Weaver, W. & Shannon, C. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Weinstein, C. & Mayer, R. (1986). The Teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New York, NY: Macmillan. Weisgerber, C. & Butler, S. (2005). Towards a theoretical framework for the design of interactive online distance learning systems. The Texas Journal of Distance Learning [Online serial], 2(2), 44-57. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www.tjdl.org/articles/v2i2/design/. Weller, M. (2007). Virtual Learning Environments - using, choosing and developing your VLE, London: Routledge. Weller, M. & Conole, G. (2007). The Open University Learning Design Project. In Cameron, L., Voerman, A. and Dalziel, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 European LAMS Conference: Designing the future of learning (pp 65-72). 5 July, 2007, Greenwich: LAMS Foundation. http://lamsfoundation.org/lams2007/papers.htm. Westera, W. (2005). Beyond functionality and technocracy: creating human involvement with educational technology. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 28-37. Whitney, P. (2007). Schools are a Last Vestige of an Industrial Age: What will schools be like when they act like information age organizations? In Spotlight: Blogging the Field of Digital Media and Learning, June 1, 2007. Last retrieved September 19, 2007 from http://spotlight.macfound.org/main/entry/schools_are_a_last_ vestige_of_an_industrial_age/. Whittaker, S., & Walker, M. (1991). Towards a theory of multimodal interaction. Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium on Multimodal Interaction. Widmayer, S. (1998). Schema Theory: An Introduction. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: www2.yk.psu.edu/~jlg18/506/SchemaTheory.pdf.
475 Widmayer, S. (1999). Schema Theory: An Introduction.: George Mason University, Fairfax, VI. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledge base/strategies/ cognitivism/SchemaTheory.htm. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge, MA: The Technology Press. Witkin, H., Moore, C., Goodenough, D., & Cox, P. (1977). Field-dependent and fieldindependent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. Wolf-Devine, C. (1993). Descartes on Seeing: Epistemology and Visual Perception. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Woodruff, A., & Aoki, P. (2004a). Media affordances of a mobile push-to-talk communication service. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 13 (5-6), 409441. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www2.parc.com/csl/projects/ audiospaces/publications.htm. Woodruff, A. & Aoki, P. (2004b). Conversation Analysis and the User Experience. Digital Creativity 15 (4), 232-238. . Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http://www2.parc.com/csl/projects/audiospaces/publications.htm. Wratcher, M., Morrison, E., Riley, V., & Scheirton, L. (1997). Curriculum and program planning: A study guide for the core seminar. Programs for higher education: Nova Southeastern University. Xin, M. (2002). Validity centered design for the domain of engaged collaborative discourse on computer conferencing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Young Brigham, Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology, United Kingdom. Last retrieved April 27, 2006, from: http:// www.textweaver.org/xin_dissertation.pdf. Yang, M., Kriegman, D., & Ahuja, N. (2002). Detecting Face in Images: A Survey. IEEE Transaction on PAMI, 24 (1), 34-58. Young, J. (2002). 'Hybrid' teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Information Technology, March 22. Last retrieved September 15, 2007, from: http://chronicle. com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm. Zhao, W., Chellappa, R., Rosenfeld, P., & Phillips, A. (2003). Face recognition: A literature survey. ACM Transactions, 35:399-458, December.
