Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on e Learning e-Learning SKEMA Business School Sophia Antipolis France 30-31 October 2013 Volume One
Edited by Mélanie Ciussi and Marc Augier
A conference managed by ACPI, UK www.academic-conferences.org
Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on e-Learning ECEL 2013 SKEMA Business School Sophia Antipolis, France 30-31 October 2013 Edited by Mélanie Ciussi and Marc Augier
Copyright The Authors, 2013. All Rights Reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission may be made without written permission from the individual authors. Papers have been double-blind peer reviewed before final submission to the conference. Initially, paper abstracts were read and selected by the conference panel for submission as possible papers for the conference. Many thanks to the reviewers who helped ensure the quality of the full papers. These Conference Proceedings have been submitted to Thomson ISI for indexing. Please note that the process of indexing can take up to a year to complete. Further copies of this book and previous year’s proceedings can be purchased from http://academic-bookshop.com E-Book ISBN: 978-1-909507-84-5 E-Book ISSN: 2048-8645 Book version ISBN: 978-1-909507-82-1 Book Version ISSN: 2048-8637 CD Version ISBN: 978-1-909507-85-2 CD Version ISSN: 2048-8637
Published by Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading UK 44-118-972-4148 www.academic-publishing.org
Contents Paper Title
Author(s)
Page No.
Preface
v
Committee
vi
Biographies
ix
When Computers Will Replace Teachers and Counsellors: Heaven and Hell Scenarios
Aharon (Roni) Aviram and Yoav Armony
1
Planning and Implementing a new Assessment Strategy Using an e-Learning Platform
Rosalina Babo and Ana Azevedo
8
Authentic Learning in Online Environments – Transforming Practice by Capturing Digital Moments
Wendy Barber, Stacey Taylor and Sylvia Buchanan
17
Signature Based Credentials, an Alternative Method for Validating Student Access in e-Learning Systems
Orlando Belo, Paulo Monsanto and Anália Lourenço
24
Two-way Impact: Institutional e-Learning Policy/Educator Practices in Creative Arts Through ePortfolio Creation
Diana Blom, Jennifer Rowley, Dawn Bennett, Matthew Hitchcock and Peter Dunbar-Hall
33
Automated Evaluation Results Analysis With Data Mining Algorithms
Farida Bouarab-Dahmani and Razika Tahi
41
Language e-Learning Based on Adaptive Decision-Making System
Vladimír Bradáč and Cyril Klimeš
48
Barriers Engaging With Second Life: Podiatry Students Development of Clinical Decision Making
Margaret Bruce, Sally Abey, Phyllis Waldron and Mark Pannell
58
Tasks for Teaching Scientific Approach Using the Black Box Method
Martin Cápay and Martin Magdin
64
Blended Learning as a Means to Enhance Students’ Motivation and to Improve Self-Governed Learning
Ivana Cechova and Matthew Rees
71
Strategies for Coordinating On-Line and Face-To-Face Components in a Blended Course for Interpreter Trainers
Barbara Class
78
iBuilding for Success? iBooks as Open Educational Resources in Built Environment Education
David Comiskey, Kenny McCartan and Peter Nicholl
86
Facilitation of Learning in Electronic Environments: Reconfiguring the Teacher’s Role
Faiza Derbel
94
Effect of e-Learning on Achievement and Interest in Basic General Mathematics Among College of Education Students in Nigeria
Foluke Eze
101
Self-Organization of e-Learning Systems as the Future Paradigm for Corporate Learning
Gert Faustmann
106
An Online Tool to Manage and Assess Collaborative Group Work
Alvaro Figueira and Helena Leal
112
Design 4 Pedagogy (D4P): Designing a Pedagogical Tool for Open and Distance Learning Activities
Olga Fragou and Achilles Kameas
121
The Affordances of 4G Mobile Networks Within the UK Higher Education Sector
Elaine Garcia, Martial Bugliolo, and Ibrahim Elbeltagi
131
An Integral Approach to Online Education: An Example
Jozef Hvorecky
139
i
Paper Title
Author(s)
Page No.
Scaffolding in e-Learning Environment
Antonín Jančařík
149
Planning for Success in Introducing and Embedding Technology to Enhance Learning
Amanda Jefferies and Marija Cubric
156
Adopting Blended Learning – Practical Challenges and Possible Solutions for Small Private Institutions
Olga Kandinskaia
164
Evaluation of e-Learning Courses for Lifelong Learning
Jana Kapounova, Milan Majdak and Pavel Novosad
173
Interuniversity Collaborative Learning With Wiki Toolsets
Elisabeth Katzlinger and Michael Herzog
184
Something for Everyone: MOOC Design for Informing Dementia Education and Research
Carolyn King, Jo-Anne Kelder, Rob Phillips, Fran McInerney, Kathleen Doherty, Justin Walls, Andrew Robinson and James Vickers
191
Collaborative Learning Environment for Discussing Topic Explanation Skill Based on Presentation Slide
Tomoko Kojiri, Hayato Nasu, Keita Maeda, Yuki Hayashi and Toyohide Watanabe
199
Learning Potentials of e-Assessments: Developing Multiple Literacies Through Media Enhanced Assessment
Christopher Könitz, Jakob Diel and Jürgen Cleve
209
Methodology for Creating Adaptive Study Material
Kateřina Kostolányová and Jana Šarmanová
218
Using Twitter, Blogs and Other Web 2.0 Technologies and Internet Resources to Enhance Arabic as a Foreign-Language Reading Skills
Blair Kuntz
224
The use of Social Networks by Universities for Communication at Institutional Level
Wolfram Laaser, Julio Gonzalo Brito and Eduardo Adrián Toloza
231
Developing Active Collaborative e-Learning Framework for Vietnam’s Higher Education Context
Long Le, Hao Tran and Axel Hunger
240
Telepresence as Educational Practice in the Third TeachingRoom – a Study in Advanced Music Education
Karin Tweddell Levinsen, Rikke Ørngreen and Mie Buhl
250
An Empirical Study on Faculty Perceptions and Teaching Practices of Wikipedia
Josep Lladós, Eduard Aibar, Maura Lerga, Antoni Meseguer and Julià Minguillon
258
How to Motivate Adult Learners Through e-Learning: Some key Insights From Research Case Studies
Kevin Lowden, Rahela Jurković and Peter Mozelius
266
Training Teachers to Learn by Design, Through a Community of Inquiry
Katerina Makri, Kyparisia Papanikolaou, Athanasia Tsakiri and Stavros Karkanis
274
Usefulness of Feedback in e-Learning From the Students’ Perspective
María-Jesús Martínez-Argüelles, Dolors PlanaErta, Carolina Hintzmann-Colominas, Marc Badia-Miró and Josep-Maria Batalla-Busquets
283
Trust as an Organising Principle of e-Learning Adoption: Reconciling Agency and Structure
Jorge Tiago Martins and Miguel Baptista Nunes
293
Smart Environments for Learning – Multi-Agent Systems Approach
Peter Mikulecky
304
Assessment of Virtual Learning Environments by Higher Education Teachers and Students
Luísa Miranda, Paulo Alves and Carlos Morais
311
Learning by Building – the Lunarstorm Generation Constructing Their own ePortfolios
Peter Mozelius
319
Learning and Instruction in the Digital Age
Antoinette Muntjewerff
323
ii
Paper Title
Author(s)
Page No.
Effectiveness of Instructional Suggestions for Note-Taking Skills in a Blended Learning Environment
Minoru Nakayama, Kouichi Mutsuura and Hiroh Yamamoto
333
Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) From the Learner’s Perspective
Bernard Nkuyubwatsi
340
In the Presence of Technology – Teaching in Hybrid Synchronous Classrooms
Anne-Mette Nortvig
347
Searching for the Ideal CLIL Course Design
Jarmila Novotná and Lenka Procházková
354
[Teaching Desktop] Video Conferencing in a Collaborative and Problem Based Setting
Rikke Ørngreen and Per Mouritzen
360
Challenging Pre-Service Teachers’ on Collaborative Authoring of Learning Designs in a Blended Learning Context
Kyparisia Papanikolaou and Evangelia Gouli
369
Technology-Enhanced-Learning and Student-Centeredness in a Foreign Language Military Class – a Case Study
Maria-Magdalena Popescu, Ruxandra Buluc, Luiza-Maria Costea and Speranza Tomescu
378
The Disruptive Potential of e-Learning in Academe and Beyond: A Futuristic Perspective
Ali Raddaoui
386
What Really Happens When Educators Make and Evaluate TEL Innovations?
Claire Raistrick
393
A Reality Check on Student Mobile Adoption and Content Creation in Resource-Constrained Environments
Patient Rambe and Liezel Nel
401
Student Perceptions on the Usefulness of Educational Technologies at a South African University
Patient Rambe and Liezel Nel
411
Digital Services Governance With AGIMUS
David Reymond
420
Functional Architecture of a Service-Oriented Integrated Learning Environment
Danguole Rutkauskiene, Rob Mark, Ramunas Kubiliunas and Daina Gudoniene
431
Using Social Network VKontakte for Studying Sociology
Daniyar Sapargaliyev and Assel Jetmekova
440
Automatic Creation of Semantic Network of Concepts in Adaptive e-Learning
Emilie Šeptáková
447
Gathering the Voices: Disseminating the Message of the Holocaust for the Digital Generation
Angela Shapiro, Brian McDonald and Aidan Johnston
457
Monitoring the Concept of e-Learning in Mind Maps of University Students
Ivana Šimonová
463
Impact of Internet Usage on Students’ Academic Performance
Florica Tomos, Christopher Miller, Paul Jones, Ramdane Djebarni, Oshisanya Oluwaseyi Olubode, Peter Obaju-Falade, Henrietta Eleodimuo Nkiruka and Tejaswi Asmath
470
An International Approach to Creative Pedagogy and Students’ Preferences of Interactive Media
Florica Tomos, Peter Mozelius, Olga Shabalina, Oana Cristina Balan, Christos Malliarakis, Christopher Miller, David Turner and Paul Jones
479
The Influence of the “Approach gap” Between Students’ and Teachers’ e-Learning Preferences
Nazime Tuncay
488
Tutoring and Automatic Evaluation of Logic Proofs
Karel Vaculík, Lubomír Popelínský, Eva Mráková and Juraj Jurčo
495
The Global Classroom Video Conferencing Model and First Evaluations
Charlotte Lærke Weitze, Rikke Ørngreen and Karin Levinsen
503
iii
Paper Title
Author(s)
Page No.
Social Media as an Educational Tool: Students’ Perspectives and Usage
Jan Wiid, Michael Cant and Corinne Nell
511
Teaching GHG Reduction for the Food Industry to Adult Learners Using Blended Learning
Stephen Wilkinson, Duncan Folley, Cathy Barnes, Philip Richard Scott and Quintan Thornton
521
E-Learning and Life-Long Learning: A Descriptive Case Study From a Teacher Educator’s Perspective: 1995-2013
Eleanor Vernon Wilson
531
Can e-Learning Identify Poor Performers in Medical School?
Hitomi Yukawa, Raoul Breugelmans, Takashi Izumi and Miki Izumi
537
A Novel Approach to e-Learning: Yasar University e-Learning System (YES)
Ibrahim Zincir, Melih Zeytinoglu, Ahmed Rana and Samsun Basarici
546
PHD Papers
553
Cultural Differences in Students’ Perceptions Towards Online Learning Success Factors
Armando Cortés and Elena Barbera
555
Visual Analytics by Animations in Higher Education
Jan Géryk
565
Strategies for Digital Inclusion - Towards a Pedagogy for Embracing Student Diversity With Online Learning
Baylie Hart Clarida, Milena Bobeva, Maggie Hutchings and Jacqui Taylor
573
GeoGebra in Teaching Linear Algebra
Veronika Havelková
581
E-Learning Based Preparation for Educational Activities Outside of School
Jiří Hoffman
590
Machine and Social Intelligent Peer-Assessment Systems for Assessing Large Student Populations in Massive Open Online Education
Cristian Jimenez-Romero, Jeffrey Johnson and Ricardo De Castro
598
Virtual Guide as a Means of a Tailored Tour of an Educational Exhibition
Lukas Najbrt
608
Online Interactive Module for Teaching a Computer Programming Course
Aisha Othman, Crinela Pislaru and Ahmed Impes
617
The Highs and Lows of Ubiquitous Mobile Connectivity Investigating Students' Well-Being
Michele Salvagno
626
Non Academic Papers
635
Development of a Fully Integrated Global Learning System in a Regulated Environment
Chuck Sigmund, Doug Wallace and Terry Kliever
637
PAOK – ICT Network for Upper Secondary Education
Riikka Vanninen, Matleena Laakso and Minna Helynen
643
Work In Progress Papers
647
Challenges in Medical Education by e-Learning
Elena Taina Avramescu, Dorin Popescu, George Ionescu and Georgios Antonopoulos
649
Activity-Based Choice of Connection and Device in e/mLearning
Cristina De Castro
354
The Digital Carrot and Survival Stick for Increased Learning and Teaching Agility
Sue Greener and Piers MacLean
659
Paradigm Shift - Engaging Academics in Social Media - the Case of Bournemouth University
Irma Kalashyan, Diyana Kaneva, Sophie Lee, David Knapp, Gelareh Roushan and Milena Bobeva
662
iv
Paper Title
Author(s)
Page No.
A Global Approach to Graduate Education and Research Training
Barbara Moser-Mercer and Barbara Class
666
OLAREX: Initiating Secondary Schools Teachers Into Online Labs Experience For Teaching
Ramona Georgiana Oros, Andreas Pester and Olga Dziabenko
670
Promoting Staff Engagement With Social Networking in Higher Education
Rebecca Rochon and John Knight
673
v
Facilitation of Learning in Electronic Environments: Reconfiguring the Teacher’s Role Faiza Derbel University of Manouba, Faculty of Letters, Arts & Humanities, Manouba, Tunisia
[email protected] Abstract: The “innovative” nature of e‐learning experiences presumes that teachers are facilitators. The techniques and strategies needed for teaching in a digital age (Anderson 2004, Starkey 2011) generally, and more specifically in electronic environments (Bender 2003, Conrad & Donaldson 2004), necessitate a shift from transactional to more participatory, communication‐rich modes of teaching. Teaching in the digital age (e‐teaching) has specific elements (Anderson 2004, Palloff & Pratt 2003, Palloff & Pratt 2007). The author reviews literature which proposes guidelines and “best practices” in e‐teacher mediation and explores strategies recommended to build online communities of practice (COPs). The challenges teachers face are discussed with reference to accounts of personal experiences, guidelines and models of “best practices” in e‐teacher mediation. The author synthesizes the ideas associated with the “teacher as facilitator” ideal to argue that they in fact resemble ideas advanced in the 1960s and 70s by advocates of the humanistic approach to language teaching (Nunan 1998), and therefore, teachers can, with appropriate support, step into the dynamic, multimodal, and complex technology‐mediated teaching/learning environments and thrive as facilitators of learning. The paper concludes with recommendations for educators to incorporate humanistic teaching and community building theories into their courses as they “reconfigure” their roles to match the demands of the task of online teaching. Keywords: e‐learning, e‐teaching, educational technology, distance education, communities of practice (COPs), digital pedagogy, computer‐supported learning, role of online teacher, facilitation, mediation, humanism in teaching
1. Introduction Rapid developments in information communication technologies (ICTs), multimedia and social network tools have added new dimensions to the criteria for what Egbert, Hanson‐Smith and Chao (2007) call “optimal learning environments” (p. 2). By bringing technology into the classroom, the teacher creates “new” learning conditions which require adjustment to the goals, objectives and style of course delivery. No matter where this technology‐supported learning environment is being created, the teachers’ learning objectives are conceived with “futuristic” educational imperatives in mind. Worldwide goals and the objectives of 21st century education were defined and circulated by a number of organizations such as the Council of Europe, UNESCO, and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), among others. As a result of these innovations, the goals of language acquisition and technology and its place in education have been rethought and redefined to match the future aspirations in classrooms throughout the world. Central to the accomplishment of these 21st century learning goals are the adjustments to be made by teachers within this learning environment. When technology is incorporated in language education, for example, language education moves beyond merely teaching vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and pronunciation. Egbert et al. (2007) list the learning goals from the 21st century education literature then match them with the “desired” classroom environment conditions to argue that language teaching in the technology‐supported classroom requires creating conditions for learners to achieve these goals (see Table 1). Teachers must support learners as they engage in interaction around authentic tasks until they “grow out of the need for external support in the activity” (p. 6). In my view, conditions six, seven and eight are where most of the pedagogical shift in electronic environments occurs. There is need for “[a] certain degree of meta‐cognitive guidance (instructions and examples about how to learn), whether from peers or others” (p. 7), which is part of creating a learner‐centered environment where barriers between teachers, learners and school cultures are reduced to give more control to the learners over their own learning. However, this does not mean that the learners are left to their own devices. “[T]he modeling, mediation, and scaffolding provided by the instructor is indispensable. Consultation with and feedback from the instructor are crucial, as students require varying degrees of control” (p. 8). Following Egbert et al.’s (2007) argument, teachers need to harness technology to optimize learning. Indeed, recent advances in mobile technology, the advent of wireless connections and social networks further stretch the possibility of applying ICTs in and outside classrooms. Simplified applications on smart phones encourage composing and editing text, images, audio, and video, thus, for individual wants, needs and interests (Jarvis,
94
Faiza Derbel 2012). The younger generations in particular are freely tinkering creatively in cyberspace as they join social networks, communicating away from the watchful eyes of parents and teachers, but this technology can be harnessed for pedagogical purposes as well. Hedberg (2011) calls this “disruptive pedagogy” where teachers find themselves confronted with new methods of accessing resources, creating learning activities, and doing assessment. Collaborative tasks on networked computers, for instance, require teachers to design tasks which encourage learners to communicate within the emerging COPs. Thus, the teacher’s role is not to transmit information and/or course content but to facilitate the communication among students and to encourage active participation in discussion (Bender 2003, p. 11). Table 1: Learning environments to match 21st century goals (Egbert et al., 2007, pp. 4‐5) 21st Century Learning Goals
Optimal Learning Environments
Knowledge Acquisition Productivity Creativity Communication Research Problem‐solving Critical thinking
Learners have opportunities to interact and negotiate meaning Learners interact in the target language with an authentic audience Learners are involved in authentic tasks Learners are exposed to and encouraged to produce varied and creative language Learners have sufficient time and feedback Learners are guided to attend thoughtfully to the learning process Learners work in an atmosphere with an ideal stress/anxiety level Learner autonomy is supported
This paper focuses on information communication technologies (ICTs) and their impact on teachers' perceptions and performance of their pedagogical roles. It is an attempt at revisiting teachers' roles as facilitators as they attempt to incorporate interactive technologies (synchronous and/or asynchronous) into face‐to‐face as well as online courses. Within this context teachers must “reconfigure” their perception of their roles, figuring out new ways to mediate course content and providing support. In short, they must develop maxims which guide their practices in cyber learning environments (Shelley, White, Baumann and Murphy 2006, p. 7). The paper will first review the literature on online teaching role(s) and e‐facilitation (Palloff & Pratt 2003, Anderson 2004, Palloff & Pratt 2007, Baran, Correia & Thompson 2011) that explains teaching strategies specific to the facilitator’s role and the challenges associated with it. As the values attached to the facilitator’s role in COPs resonate with those found in the literature on humanistic approaches to language teaching (Nunan 1998, Richards & Rogers 2000, Pino‐Silva & Mayora 2010), it is argued that pedagogies should support teachers making philosophical changes in that direction.
2. Specific online teacher roles, techniques and strategies In their book on building learning communities, Palloff and Pratt (2007, p. 5) point out that when schools shift toward online learning, the whole instructional setting and concept of “appropriate” pedagogy changes. Learners must cope with greater availability of and accessibility to information, and more learning tasks that function on individual and interpersonal levels. Teachers experience similar demands and challenges, thus may have to approach their work differently. E‐learning environments which embed synchronous and asynchronous communication tools require applying “active learning techniques such as working collaboratively on assignments, participating in small‐group discussions and projects, reading and responding to case studies, role playing and using simulations” (p. 5). In the meantime, when working together, teachers and learners create “a web of learning” (p. 5) consisting technology mediating interaction. When teachers incorporate interaction tools and organize activities around threaded discussions or dialogues where they function merely as moderators, learners create and shape relations as part of their participation within the emerging community of learning (COL) (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer 2000). They facilitate by providing support and coaching to help participants build relationships and progress with common learning goals. Following an analysis of eleven research articles focusing on the roles and competencies of online teachers, Baran et al. (2011) were able to compile three key roles by searching for the commonalities between the roles and functions of online teachers across contexts. These are reproduced in Table 2 below. Each role encompasses numerous complex tasks with the social role occupying a more crucial position in electronic environments.
95
Faiza Derbel Table 2: Online teacher roles synthesized from the literature (Baran et al. 2001, pp. 427‐428) Roles
Specific skills and functions
Instructional design role
Planning, organizing, and structuring the course components, designing learning tasks, designing interactive technologies and teaching strategies/models and maintaining and organizing learning and making sure the learning goals are achieved.
Managerial role
Carrying out the pedagogical tasks related with course management, managing communication channels and supervising the virtual learning process.
Social role
Building and improving student‐teacher relationships in a virtual learning environment, expressing energy and humor, and establishing an expressive connection with the students.
The specificities for the role of the e‐teacher are described in a number of teacher training handbooks (Anderson, Rourke, Archer & Garrison 2001, Palloff & Pratt 2003, Anderson 2004, Smyth & Mainka 2006, Palloff & Pratt 2007; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek 2009). Anderson et al. (2001, n.p.) describe three “critical roles” of the online teacher: the role of instructional design, facilitation of discourse, and direct instruction. The first involves designing and organizing the course before launching them into the learning community and monitoring its process. The second involves implementing the activities, and the third consists of blending subject matter with the teacher's expertise and e‐moderation techniques (i.e. varying forms of instruction). Salmon (in Anderson 2004: 279) propose a five‐step process of e‐moderation in online courses: (i) access and motivation, (ii) online socialization, (iii) information exchange, (iv) knowledge construction, and (v) development. The first two steps require establishing access and solving technical problems, which may seem mundane but can be very crucial in building trust. Anderson illustrates the strategies his own team of e‐ learning teachers uses: We usually facilitate this trust formation by having students post a series of introductory comments about themselves. It is useful to request specific information, and to model an answer to the response request yourself (the teacher). For example, the e‐teacher may request that students articulate their reasons for enrolling in the course or their interest in the subject matter. I have seen this technique very successfully extended at the beginning of regular online synchronous sessions by asking each student to respond spontaneously to a content related “question of the week” that sets the tone for growth of both social and cognitive presence (p.280) In the third stage, the teacher introduces course content and begins modeling tasks such as how to start discussion threads based on assigned readings, and setting performance criteria such as “please focus on the questions posted. But‐‐do bring in related thoughts and material, other readings, or questions that occur to you from the ongoing discussion” (Levine 2002 cited in Anderson 2004, p. 282). During the fourth stage, the teacher loosens control so “the students focus on creating knowledge artifacts and projects that collaboratively and individually illustrate their understanding of course content and approaches” (p. 289). The fifth step leads to learner autonomy as they assume total responsibility for producing language with little or no teacher intervention. To summarize, facilitation of online learning is a structured activity and yet its success depends on the exploration of the specifics of the situation and needs of the participants. The specific facilitation strategies performed during each of the five steps outlined above are expected to lead to a gradual loosening of the instructor’s control and participation in shared learning experiences by the more autonomous members of the community, so much so that as the course progresses, the instructor may not need to intervene at all. These strategies are validated in the essays written at Royal Roads University, Canada, compiled by Dewar (2003) on the process of making the transition from face‐to‐face to online teaching. For instance, Harris (2003, p. 6) argues that by easing control over the flow of the interaction, a teacher is able to leave space for learners to manage their own dialogue so that their dialogue evolves in‐interaction. Another contributor (Hillis 2003), mentions “building relationships, showing empathy, providing balanced feedback, acknowledging input, risk‐ taking, and asking questions” (p.12).
96
Faiza Derbel While these teachers argue that they were able to manage the new e‐learning environment by transferring skills they had used in face‐to‐face classrooms, Palloff and Pratt (2007) work out “a systematic approach” they call the “human side of online learning” (pp. 45‐64) which rests on concepts like connectedness, shared responsibility, spiritual issues, vulnerability, and ethics and privacy. As can be inferred from the ordering of these themes in Palloff and Pratt’s book, there is, as is the case in Salomon’s (2000) five‐step model, a strategic progression from general to the specific concerns and from control to a gradual loosening of that control. At the same time they discuss the need for adjustment and the gradual adoption of “new ways of teaching” in the process of building an online community of learning. These themes include: “making the transition”, “establishing presence”, “new approaches, new skills” and “building community and participation,” the latter being the ultimate goal of teaching online. As these themes reflect institutional and learner expectations, understanding what they entail definitely impacts teachers’ understanding of their roles within online learning communities. Anderson (2004) believes the e‐teacher helps learners “develop their own thought processes” and construct knowledge and understanding of the world through discourse which “helps [them] uncover misconceptions in their own thinking, or disagreements with the teacher or other students” (p. 280). The teacher as facilitator of the online interaction mixes “old’ and “new” techniques and strategies and takes on new roles in the hope of “getting the mix right” (Anderson 2004, p. 277). To confirm “teaching presence”, the e‐teacher is required to model posting, react to dissonance, support and reassure anxious learners, monitor individual and group progress, and assess performance. All these roles require skillful flexibly and the “e‐Teacher’s ability to include effective communication, higher cognitive and social interactions, and other student to student or student to teacher collaborations [as] one of the cornerstones of learning experiences” (Soek 2008, p. 727). Indeed, reporting on their experience as moderators and their analysis of the transcripts of a local Yahoo group of EFL teachers, Pino‐Silva and Mayora (2010) identify distinctive styles of moderation and participation they liken to those of the coach and referee. A coach “set[s] a strategy and tr[ies] to get the players to make moves in the field” (p. 266) while a referee “make[s] sure that the rules of the game are observed. He does not usually start the plays or make moves. He tries to bring back participants into the focus of the discussion…” (p. 267). Judging from the testimonies of teachers making the transition or taking on the role of online moderators, the performance of the numerous and complex tasks as facilitator is a delicate balancing act. The teacher as facilitator can be a referee or a coach or both at the same time. As Gonzalez and Almeida d’Eça (2005) observe: We (moderators) intervene “to taste”, more at the beginning in order to get the action going, then progressively and subtly let go and step back as much as possible, but are always ready to intervene. In short, we try to make this workshop a warm, friendly, responsive, helpful, clarifying, motivating and satisfying place that will generate constant interaction and action (n.p.). Thus, it is about mixing roles and “getting the mix right” (Anderson 2004). No wonder Dewar and Whittington (2003) choose “Balancing High Tech and High Touch” as a title for their account on moderating an online distance course, wherein they emphasize their role in reconciling program and learner needs, and especially the learners’ needs for affective support. The “high touch” denotes the e‐teacher’s role of genuinely caring for learners as part of the building of the community of learning. The authors see the task of moderating communication in an online community as requiring the skillful display of strategies like:
Building confidence in intimidated or alienated learners
Mixing compliments and recommendation while evaluating students’ work
Sending unexpected “support” emails to the students who seem to be struggling (offering additional support)
Posting notes of encouragement to the group before paper submission deadlines
Dealing with complaints early on in the course
Practicing thorough and timely formative evaluation
Providing individualized feedback privately (while keeping it out of the “discussion group” space)
Building confidence and a group sense of achievement (pp. 37‐42)
97
Faiza Derbel These strategies, or "practical moves", described by Dewar and Wittington, reflect their attempt to strike a balance between the teacher's need to show leadership and the need to exert control over the course. They say loosening the instructor’s grip on the course and learners helps promote self‐pacing, autonomy and warmth within the online community. They also write about a “transition” which points to the need to reconfigure an understanding of teachers' roles and strategies. Indeed, facilitating instruction/learning is easier said than done. The first challenge comes from the nature of the group processes and patterns of participation evolving over time. As the title of my paper suggests, it is due to these demands and the complexity of the situation and the issues arising from such complexity that I am suggesting “reconfiguring” the role of the teacher as facilitator. For instance, Simonson et al. (2009, p. 186) advise instructors/facilitators to
assess the quality of the initial postings and to carry out a critical (not negative but scholarly) analysis of at least one initial posting by one other person’s posting
see if there are additional scholarly analyses of other postings
provide guidance for managing the flow of postings
see if people have read the instructor’s clarifications and explanations in the thread
Evidently, these tasks are far from linear. They need to be coordinated, synchronized and gauged on the basis of the facilitator’s judgment of the “depth and breadth” of the postings and his or her assessment of the participants’ level of engagement. In other words, the facilitator’s presence is not affirmed by conveying course content, but by assisting the members of this learning community in how to learn and how to cooperate with one another and perhaps others in cyberspace (Palloff & Platt 2003, p. 126). While it appears that by performing this role e‐teachers are acting like a guide on the side and a leader of group process (Collison, Haavind & Tinker 2000), they are also “hand holding” for the technologically challenged, organizing posts and discussion threads, infusing personality with tone, and leading introductory community‐building activities. I turn now to the challenges e‐teachers face as facilitators and sum up the issues of concern in facilitation in online learning environments.
3. Challenges of e‐facilitation Several authors and educators mention various areas of concern. Palloff & Platt (2003) mention “feelings of isolation and potential problems accessing resources” (p. 60). In a later book they highlight four areas of concern for the e‐teacher: (i) making the transition, (ii) establishing presence, (iii) applying new approaches and skills, (iv) building community and participation, and (v) social presence in the online environment. Clark and Mayer (2008, pp. 265‐267) discuss learner control being decisive in the process of community building efforts, and warn against uncertainty surrounding the outcome expectation when shifting the locus of control to the learners. They raise questions about whether the discourse produced during collaborative work necessarily results in learning for the individuals and the group, to what extent the heterogeneous composition of COPs can be a valid choice, and whether individual performance criteria and group cooperation criteria can be balanced. A study related to the role of facilitator of COPs in organizations Tarmizi et al. (2007, p. 26) yields a list of ten tasks perceived by professional facilitators as important and/or difficult, with the top three considered at the same time challenging and important (see italics):
Encouraging new members to participate in the community’s activities
Promoting ownership and encouraging group responsibility
Creating and maintaining an open, positive, and participative environment
Building cooperative relationships among members
Mediating conflicts within the community
Creating comfort with and promoting understanding of the tools and tool outputs
Keeping community focus on its purpose
Implementing a strategy for attracting new members
Advocating community independency to management
98
Faiza Derbel
Encouraging multiple perspectives
Notably, participation in these three tasks is recognized by professional facilitators as a concern in COPs, regardless of the length of experience, suggesting that fostering human relations, managing the e‐learner’s affective needs, and cultivating harmony within the group are priority concerns in e‐facilitation. These results coincide with the ideas in the literature on the social role of the online teacher in building communities in the field of distance education emphasized by Palloff & Platt (2007).
4. What is not so novel in the teacher’s role? The facilitator's role can be understood in terms of COL's catering to learners’ affective and social needs, a caring humanistic role that has been acknowledged in general education and in language teaching models in the 1960s and 70s (Stevick 1990, 1982; Curran 1972). Nunan (1998, p. 235) summarizes the implications of the humanistic tradition in terms of the cognitive function, the management function, the practical goals function, personal/interpersonal function and the warmth and enthusiasm function, which are at the heart of the “reconfigured” role of the online teacher I have described. E‐teachers functioning in the electronic environment and taking on the role of facilitator are required to mix managerial, technological and relational/inter‐relational skills to keep the interaction within the learning community flowing. Along the way, e‐teachers intervene to “smooth the way” (Dewar 2003, p. 43), “lower barriers” and help participants “navigate through the obstacles” (Tarmizi et al. 2007, p. 19). Therefore, when planning preparation or induction courses, teacher educators may take into account the need for expanding their roles in virtual learning environments. As part of the theoretical input, they may incorporate readings about the philosophical underpinnings of the humanistic approaches to learning, teaching, and counseling in learning and community building. As Baran et al. (2001) put it, “online teachers often feel uncertain, uneasy, and unprepared for the challenges of teaching online, and also lacking in the tools and conditions that they use to establish their expertise…” (p. 436). Therefore, I believe the easiest way for teachers to make the transition is to experience learning in online communities themselves as part of their on‐going professional development programs. st I have attempted in this paper to analyze the role of teacher as facilitator in the context of the 21 century online learning community by examining the different views about the need for teachers to re‐examine their roles. Most writings emphasize pedagogical transitions or shifts, but on the whole it became clear that facilitation means remembering the principles of “good teaching” and “best practices” in face‐to‐face instruction, and especially those which match the requirements of online teaching/learning (see Wright 1987). As we revisit “old” ideas coming from the humanistic tradition teacher educators will need to continue to inspire teachers wanting to make sense of the new task of teaching in the electronic environment by allowing them to reflect on their social role as mediators within online communities.
References Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Archer, W. and Garrison, R. (2001) “Assessing Teaching Presence in Computer Conferencing Transcripts.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, Vol. 5, No 2. Retrieved from http:www.aln.org/publications/jaln/vtn2_anderson.asp [accessed 15 July 2013] Anderson, T. (2004) “Teaching in an Online Learning Context.” In T. Anderson and F. Elloumi (eds.) Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Alberta University, Athabasca, CA. Baran, E., Correia, A. P., and Thompson, A. (2011) “Transforming Learning Practice: Critical Analysis of the Literature on the Roles and Competencies of Online Teachers.” Distance Education, 32, pp. 421‐439. Bender, T. (2003) Discussion‐based Online Teaching to Enhance Student Learning. Stylus Publishing, Inc., Sterling, VA. Clark, R. C. and Mayer, R. E. (2008) E‐Learning and Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, John Wiseley & Sons, San Francisco. Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S. and Tinker, R. (2000) Facilitating Online Learning: Effective Strategies for Moderators, Atwood Publishing, Madison. Conrad, R. and Donaldson, J. L. (2004) Engaging the Online Learner: Activities and Resources for Creative Instruction, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco. Curran, C. (1972) Counseling‐learning: A Whole Person Model for Education, Grune and Stratton, New York. Dewar, T. (ed.) (2003) Keyboard Voices: Reflections on Online Facilitation and Community Building, Royal Roads University, CA. Dewar, T. and Whittington, D. (2003) Learning New Skills. In T. Dewar (ed.) Keyboard Voices: Reflections on Online Facilitation and Community Building, Royal Roads University, Canada.
99
Faiza Derbel Egbert, J., Hanson‐Smith, E. and Chao, C. (2007) Introduction: Foundations for Teaching and Learning. In J. Egbert, E. Hanson‐Smith, and C. Chao (eds.) CALL Environments: Research, Practice and Critical Issues (2nd Ed.), TESOL, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, USA. nd Egbert, J. and Hanson‐Smith, E. (2007) (2 Ed.) CALL Environments: Research, Practice and Critical Issues. TESOL, Inc, Alexandria, Virginia, USA. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2000) “Critical Thinking in Text‐based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education.” The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2), pp. 87‐105. Gonzalez, D. and Almeida d’Eça, T. (2005) “Becoming Webheads: First Steps in Blended and Online EFL/ESL Teaching.” Teaching English with Technology, Vol. 5, No 3. IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group. Hannafin, M. J. and Land, S. (1997) “The Foundations and Assumptions of Technology‐enhanced Student‐centred Learning Environments.” Instructional Science, 25, pp. 167‐202. Harris, B. (2003) “Transitioning to Online Facilitation.” In T. Dewar (ed.) Keyboard Voices: Reflections on Online Facilitation and Community Building, Royal Roads University, Canada. Hedberg, J. G. (2011) “Towards a Disruptive Pedagogy: Changing Classroom Practice with Technologies and Digital Content.” Educational Media International, Vol. 48, No 1, pp. 1‐16. Hillis, L. (2003) “Laurie Relearns her ABC’s‐ or..Practical Ideas to Transition from Face‐to‐Face to On‐line Facilitation.” In T. Dewar (ed.) Keyboard Voices: Reflections on Online Facilitation and Community Building, Royal Roads University, Canada. Jarvis, H. (2012) Computers and Learner Autonomy: Trends and Issues. The British Council, London. nd Nunan, D. (2000) (2 Ed.) Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Pearson Education, Ltd., Harlow, Essex. Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K. (2003) The Virtual Student: A Profile and Guide to Working with Online Learners. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey Bass. Palloff, R.M. and Pratt, K. (2007) (2nd Ed.) Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom. Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Pino‐Silva, J. and Mayora, C.A. (2010) “English Teachers’ moderating and participating in COPs.” System No 38, pp. 262‐271. nd Richards, J.C. and Rogers, T.S. (2001) (2 Ed.) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Seok, S. (2008) “Teaching Aspects of E‐learning.” International Journal on E‐Learning 7, 4, pp. 725‐741. Shelley, M., White, C., Baumann, U., and Murphy, L. (2006) “’It’s a Unique Role!’ Perspectives on tutor Attributes and Expertise in Distance Language Teaching.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 7, No 2, pp. 1‐15. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., and Zvacek (2009) Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education (4th Ed.), Pearson Education, Inc., Boston, US. Smyth, K. and Mainka, C. (2006) Pedagogy and Learning Technology: A Practical Guide. Edinburgh Napler University, Edinburgh. st Starkey, L. (2011) “Evaluating Learning in the 21 Century: A Digital Age Matrix.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, Vol. 20, No 1, pp. 19‐39. Stevick, E. W. (1990). Humanism in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Tarmizi, H., de Vreede, G. and Zigurs, I. (2007) “Leadership Challenges in Communities of Practice: Supporting Facilitators via Design and Technology.” International Journal of e‐Collaboration, Vol.3, No 1, pp. 18‐39. Wright, T. (1987) Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
100
