In early 2015 I was studying two modules on my Technology Enhanced Learning MSc, one of which was eTutoring. From sharing a part of my eTutoring work in the post 'An experience of facilitating an online discussion' (which I received a distinction), after looking through some of my work I've decided to share the accompanying essay (which was graded a B). It would be a shame not to share it as I really enjoyed the subject of eTutoring - in fact it was one of my favourite pieces of work during my Technology Enhanced Learning MSc, but not forgetting my eLearning package evaluation, ePortfolio and dissertation! Here is a presentation I made taking excerpts from the essay component of the eTutoring module I did. EDIT: this is now down at the bottom as I later decided to include the entire piece.
Models for facilitating online discussions
Introduction
eTutoring (online tutoring) is where a tutor facilitates and orchestrates learning within an online environment, usually to support learners in a distance and blended delivery models (Bennett & Youde, 2010). This role can consist of initiating an activity right through to facilitating and motivating it to giving feedback and assessment (Mobbs, 2005). Garrison (2011) defines eTutoring as;
“Facilitating discourse recognizes the role of the community of inquiry as enabling and encouraging the construction of personal meaning as well as shaping and confirming mutual understanding” (p 58).
However, the increasing availability of online technology such as social networking and online tools/resources has led today’s teacher to use a wider more flexible and diverse range of technologies to meet the needs and demands of today’s learners (Jisc, 2012). This has resulted in teachers needing rigorous training and skill development to cope, facilitate and manage learning within these rapidly evolving and demanding environments (Gordon, 2014).
This essay aims to introduce and broaden Salmon’s 5 Stage Model (2011) with a discussion of themes that can be applied within in it, with the view of proposing a simplistic model. In this essay I will explore and discuss a range of themes that are concerned with facilitating within an online asynchronous environment. I investigate and examine related theories and practice through the themes, outline concerns that have future possibilities, then conclude with my findings that extend my understanding and practice, with an outlook of using my own model for facilitating an online discussion. eTutoring is of high interest to me as firstly I like to learn and facilitate learning from a distance, secondly I like discussion forums but I want to improve my practice of facilitating them and finally eTutoring is where practical application of technology is supported with pedagogical purpose.
Discussion
There are many types of online tools and resources to support eTutoring via discussions such as asynchronous text-based discussion forums, instant chat, webpage authoring, ePortfolios, blogs and wikis (Bennett & Youde, 2010). Furthermore, there are methods in which these online discussions can and should be approached. The following section starts with a discussion that explores strategies that are concerned with facilitating online discussions such as initiating engagement and motivation of learners.
Considerations for online facilitation
As within face-to-face delivery, the eTutor is expected to manage learners within an activity (Setlhako, 2014). Garrison (2011) claims that teaching online is just as important as in face-to-face discussions. Folley (2013) recognises that tutors transform from direct instruction to a more facilitative approach when teaching online. This adds the notion of how can a tutor facilitate in an online environment? Drawing on Salmon’s 5 Stage Model (2011) I discuss how some themes; empathy, motivating, prompting, challenging, weaving and summarising can be applied within the model along with further ideas. Salmon’s model is heavily influenced on the constructivist approach (Jonassen et al, 1995 & Wenger et al, 2002). Salmon supports this model by stating that a scaffold for learning, interaction and an eTutor are vital for high-level constructivist collaboration (Salmon, 2011). Salmon’s model encourages the eTutor to facilitate discussions so that learners can focus on the exploration and examination of accessible information of problems or issues (Salmon, 2011). Garrison (2011) concludes that converging interest, engagement and learning can help meet the purposes, processes and outcomes of an online activity. Garrison also makes the point that instruction is critical part of the eTutor.
Empathy
Firstly within access and motivation stage, the eTutor is encouraged to show sensitivity to online relationships and communication (Salmon, 2011). In my experience as a tutor, without this approach the activity can appear rigid and emotionless; which can demotivate learners and the activity itself. I agree with Cornelius (2001) that to facilitate interactions there must be focus on relationships and the environment for learners to form strong connections between the content and the interaction around it. But to do this I believe that individuals (humans) and in particular tutors (both online and face-to-face) should include and promote empathy in both personal and professional life as it helps to understand others so you can communicate better with them (McLaren, 2013). Additionally, as McLaren (2013, p 4) eloquently puts; “empathy is crucial to the functioning of all social structures.” It is my belief that empathy surrounds and binds all connections, interactions and relationships either personal or professional. Through opening these internal skills and widening our external awareness, greater understanding of individuals can be achieved. McLaren (2013, p 3) sums my thoughts up by stating;
“Empathy helps you connect with others, feel alongside them, understand them, work with them, meet their needs.”
Overall, the core duties at this stage are to welcome, congratulate, encourage, reassure, and give direction to help (Salmon, 2007). Furthermore, the eTutor should be philosophically and emotionally (emotional intelligence) committed to the activity and enabling learners to connect with their own motivational drivers. (Gamble, 2013). The eTutor can refer back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to help learners feel a sense of belonging within the learning environment (Smith, 1999). However, Moore (1993) claims that transactional distance could compromise the space between the tutor and learner. This is when dialogue is minimal between the learner and tutor through internal autonomy thus the distance between the learner and the tutor is increased. This suggests that this could counteract Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as learners could lose the feeling of belonging.
Motivating
Secondly within the online socialisation stage, the overall aim of online discussions is to achieve interaction amongst the learners. The eTutor can provide a role model through leading by example (Salmon, 2011). Introducing icebreakers for example and welcome messages could be used as a method into opening up learners to the topic. This could be about personal experiences and previous knowledge in relation to the topic. I recommend that using a powerful introduction with purposeful resources can help trigger interest amongst learners. The key is to get all learners to contribute as early as possible so that the tutor knows all learners are capable of contributing and not tempted to ‘lurk’ (Walsh, 2009). Considering transactional analysis could help assess learner’s responses and interactions towards each other. Transactional stimulus described by Berne (1964) as two or more people encountering each other in a social situation suggests that people will acknowledge the presence of others. Individuals will respond to each other either through the parent, adult or child ego state related to the stimulus which is called the transaction. Basic transactional analysis is related to identifying which ego state enabled the transactional stimulus and which one carried out the transactional response (Berne, 1964). eTutors as with face-to-face need to be aware of the ego states that learners are responding to as this will help identify how learners are approaching their learning, peers and the task itself. Smith (2003, 2009) introduces Wenger’s ‘communities of practice’ where members engage in activities help each other by sharing their experiments and knowledge, thus learning from each other. In effect members become practitioners as they are practicing with the information shared. An eTutor could aim to embed this within any online sharing space to enable learners to become practitioners. Collis and Moonen (2005) support this through their participation model by clarifying that the focus should be on learning activities and becoming a member of a community of practice and contributing to it. This recommends that online discussions should be focussed around the activity rather than the content. However, I agree with Collis and Moonen that learners do need to be self-aware of learning to learn, collaborating and self-regulating to ensure that they can participate effectively within the community. Weller (2002) discussed how collaborative learning is about learners working in a group or team to construct and develop learning. It can be in the form of discussions or creating material amongst its members. However, in some circumstances online discussions could be used in a more informal way. Weller (2002) and Mayes and Freitas (2004) introduced the notion of situative learning. This approach is about learning incidentally rather than deliberately; meaning that learners participate in learning that is applicable to them but not central to the course. This could also be coined with learning as social practice, which places tutor in a more supportive but less central role (Weller 2002).
Prompting
Thirdly within the information exchange stage, the eTutor could be more flexible in their approach; ensuring the right pace for the activity. It is important for the eTutor to follow the flow of the conversation and prompt where needed rather than replying to each and every individual contribution (Walsh, 2009). They should try and not be as strict and pounce on individuals for minimal or no participation. They could be more flexible of how and when learners contribute and praise effort rather than the opposite. The eTutor should be about guiding learners to the end goal and keeping them on track (Baran et al, 2011). Also, they could be more creative in their responses, giving stimulus to their replies to provoke individuals to keep coming back (Walsh, 2009). Ultimately, the eTutor could encourage learners to do their own weaving (taking and replying to contributions) and summarising responses but being observant and willing to correct and comment where appropriate (Salmon, 2007).
Challenging
Also in the information exchange stage, again the eTutor must allow flexibility and not jump to conclusions if some learners are not participating. Features of the technology could be used to find out if the learner has been accessing or viewing the content. If this is the case, then a private message or a tutorial may resolve the situation (Salmon, 2011). However, being empathetic and supportive but praising and awarding effort fairly could provide the encouragement needed to challenge participants (Walsh, 2009). The overall aim is to give guidance to learners, engage less responsive and manage more dominant learners (Garrison, 2011).
Weaving
Fourthly within the knowledge construction stage, weaving is pulling together all replies and contributions related to a particular topic and making them open for inspection (Salmon, 2011). Learners should be encouraged to weave other’s efforts to further the conversation with more contributions (Baran et all, 2011). Weaving could be done throughout a conversation, but not at an early stage as most contributions will be from the eTutor and not the learners. As Garrison (2011) highlights; too much teaching and teaching presence can affect discourse. Furthermore, weaving should not be done for the sake of it, but to pull together themes and quote value (Salmon, 2011).
Summarising
Finally in the development stage, summarising occurs at the end of the discussion and the eTutor should collect all main points and themes through positive but reinforcing feedback and declaring any omissions that could be irrelevant. These contributions could then be collected, colour coded and mapped against learners names and be formed into a resource in which learners can refer to and signals the end of the activity (Salmon, 2011).
Further from Salmon’s 5 Stage Model, the eTutor should also exploit all features available within the technology to help facilitate the discussion. For example, setting thread-like formats, word counts, annotating/highlighting and archiving contributions. In my experience, exploiting full potential of the technology should be aimed at making eTutor easier not harder, thus making the learning and teaching experience more enjoyable.
Extending from this discussion, when facilitating online learning it poses some questions that I feel need further exploration. The following is a discussion of what I feel are concerns related to my interest in facilitating online discussions.
Time in accessing and visiting contributions and interpreting them before responding
It can be time very time consuming to check on online discussions, more than it would face-to-face; effective timetabling for feedback and checking participation is the best way to ensure timely assessment of contributions (Salmon, 2011). Likewise, it takes time to interpret contributions before responding. In support, Schön (1983) suggests that this is good practice through their Reflection in Action theory; where the tutor is expected to reflect on an issue or improvement in front of them and consider the connection in their behaviour. Furthermore, the recent explosion of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) uses the recent learning theory of connectivism to empower and influence others (Wheeler, 2012). This learning theory could be used more effectively within in online discussions, for example it could make better use of the eTutor’s time by allowing learners to peer feedback, review and critique.
Lack of empathy and personal involvement
eTutoring can portray a pseudo tutor disguised as an avatar, which can be a ‘turn-off’ to learners as they need a sense of realism and tutor interaction (Thompson, undated). Scott (2013) claims that “technology does not give you the human element”. A way to improve this is to have real picture on profiles and/or include some personal but yet professional information such as a regularly updated blog for added value. However, this may not be enough as McLaren (2013, p 18) positively states;
“It’s not enough to merely share an emotion with another; you also have to be able to do something helpful and compassionate in response”.
The expectation of ‘leaving learners to it’
It is my understanding through colleagues’ views that online discussions can be left to develop on their own without teacher presence or interaction. However, Folley (2013) implies that tutor presence is essential to lead and facilitate activities to build social presence. Furthermore, if constructed carefully and considerately, Just-in-Time teaching (JiTT) can be applied. As Peeters states, JiTT is about creating a feedback loop in learner’s learning by them specifically developing understanding through non-contact hours, which is often online materials (Peeters, 2010).
Synchronous vs asynchronous
I feel that many people think that delivering learning from face-to-face to online has the same principles. However, as Krznarić and Buinac imply;
“Online learning is different from the traditional face-to-face learning in many aspects such as the way in which the information is conveyed, interaction with instructors, lifestyle of the learners” (2010, p 876 - 879).
Salmon (2014) supports this through their Carpe Diem process which is a methodology for highlighting the difference in delivery and tutoring through careful planning and designing for blended learning opportunities. Furthermore, Cornelius (2001) finds that text does not suit everyone and that synchronous (real-time) learning provides an additional sensory experience through audio and video as people learn, hear, and think in different ways; adding the human element. Also, Cornelius (2001) explains that asynchronous (time independent) learning is beneficial as once it has developed it can be reused more easily than asynchronous, plus learners have the time to think and reflect about their contributions. I agree firmly with these statements as they sum up the difference between both mediums.
To conclude my essay, I will close with the following discussion of how my findings have improved my understanding and informed my practice.
Conclusion
Throughout this essay it has helped me expanded my awareness and widen my knowledge of how the themes sit firmly within Salmon’s 5 Stage Model (2011). Previously, I have used the model to signpost and judge where I am at in running an online discussion. It was very much just a static framework, but now I have added meaning to it and filled it with a purpose that I understand. Throughout the model I have applied the following themes to the stages; empathy (access and motivation), motivating (online socialisation), prompting and challenging (information exchange), weaving (knowledge construction) and summarising (development) giving myself theory of how to achieve each stage. My experience of eTutoring previously has been with the model but very under used. But now I feel I have made sense of this model and can now use it as a framework to use on future online discussions. However, I can use and adapt other pedagogies such as community of practice, contributing student, situative and connectivism learning to help me achieve what I want leaners to do. However, synchronous learning is a better approach to be more human, but is a limitation of getting everyone together at that particular time. Furthermore, Garrison (2011) strongly recommends that eTutors should address the following pointers:
- Managing and monitoring discourse
- Sustaining encouragement demands serious commitment
- Quality contributions require discourse to be focussed and productive
- Awareness of cognitive and social presence
- Timing of responses to be carefully considered (timetabling and maintaining momentum)
Concentrating on these ideas helps me to understand what implications could be present in pre and post to running an online discussion. Garrison (2011) emphasises that we must model critical discourse when scaffolding to meet goals as pedagogical, interpersonal and organisational issues are involved. So, to help me create a critical model for discourse in which Garrison (2011) suggests, appendix 1 illustrates a future idea in which I could plan out my facilitation skills within an online discussion. It can provide a plan in which informative and formative feedback can be given. It can be viewed as a typical overview of facilitating and online activity. The duration indicates the length of the activity from start to finish, the E-Tivity identifies the type of activity and the action outlines what the learner and eTutors is expected to do. However, the interactions will differ depending on learner numbers and the amount of replies they contribute, but this example focusses on my recent experience of an online discussion via individual contributions.
To summarise, I have identified two models that could potentially be used to support online facilitation; one that describes depth to the process and the other for a simplistic overview of actions. Overall, the eTutor needs to plan rigorous strategies that enable and encourage deep, meaningful and purposeful learning (Garrison, 2011). Cornelius (2001) suggests that eTutors need to recognise their styles and how to assess the styles of the participants to design and facilitate considerately. However in my opinion, the activity does depend on how it is designed and what and how the technology is implemented.
Appendices
Appendix 1. A model for critical discourse in an online discussion.
References
Baran, E, Correia, A & Thompson, A (2011) ‘Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers’ Distance Education, 32:3, 421-439
Bennett, L, Youde, A (2010) ‘Teaching in Lifelong Learning: Chapter 12: E-tutoring’ Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education
Berne, E (1964) ‘Games People Play: The psychology of human relationships’ The Penguin Group
Collis & Moonen (2005) ‘An On-Going Journey: Technology as a Learning Workbench’ University of Twente
Cornelius, S (2001) ‘Online Tutoring e-Book’ Heriot-Watt University, The Robert Gordon University
Folley, S (2013) ‘Bridging the gap between face-to-face and online teaching : a case study exploring tutors’ early experiences of teaching online in a UK university 2009-2012’ Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield
Gamble, M (April 2013) ‘Jiscmail List Discussion of Online Distance Learning: Online Learning Tips’ ALT-Members, Jiscmail
Garrison , D, R (2011 second edition) ‘E-Learning in the 21st Century’ Taylor & Francis
Gordon, N (2014) ‘Flexible Pedagogies: technology-enhanced learning’ The Higher Education Academy
Jisc (2012) ‘Learning in a Digital Age: Extending higher education opportunities for lifelong learning’ HEFCE
Jonassen D, Davidson, M, Collins, M, Campbell, B, Haag, B (1995)’Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education, American Journal of Distance Education 9 (2), p 7-25
Krznarić, M, Buinac, R. (24-28 May 2010) 'Can online learning help Croatian ESL students achieve better fluency' MIPRO, 2010 Proceedings of the 33rd International Convention
Mayes, T, Freitas, S (2004) ‘JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study: Stage 2: Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models’ Jisc
McLaren, K (2013) ‘The Art of Empathy: a complete guide to life’s most essential skill’ Sounds True, Inc.
Mobbs, R (2005) ‘The Role of the eTutor’ http://www.le.ac.uk/users/rjm1/etutor/etutor/etutorrole.html (accessed 8 February 2015)
Moore, M. G (1993) ‘Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.) Theoretical Principles of Distance Education’ New York, Routledge
Peeters, S (2010) ' Just-in-Time teaching' http://www.sussex.ac.uk/tldu/ideas/methods/jitt (accessed 4 February 2015)
Salmon G, Wright P (2014) ‘Transforming Future Teaching through ‘Carpe Diem’ Learning Design’ Education Sciences, 4(1):52-63
Salmon, G (2011 third edition) ‘e-moderating: The Key to Online Teaching and Learning’ Routledge
Salmon, G (April 2007) ‘80:20 for E-Moderators’ University of Leicester
Schön, D (1983) ‘The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action’ London: Temple Smith
Scott, D (2013) https://twitter.com/_Daniel_Scott/status/332038926669840384 (accessed 4 February 2015)
Setlhako, A, M (November 2014) ‘Competencies Required for the Facilitation of Online Learning Courses: An Online Teaching Assistants Competency Based Approach’ Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy, 5:23
Smith, M, K (2003, 2009) ‘Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and communities of practice’ http://infed.org/mobi/jean-lave-etienne-wenger-and-communities-of-practice/ the encyclopedia of informal education (accessed 23 February 2015)
Smith, M. K (1999) ‘The humanistic to learning’ http://infed.org/mobi/humanistic-orientations-to-learning/ the encyclopedia of informal education (accessed 8 February 2015)
Thompson, K (undated) ‘Group work/collaborative based learning’ https://bestpracticemodels.wiki.staffs.ac.uk/@api/deki/files/167/=Online_participation.pdf (accessed 8 February 2015)
Walsh, S (2009) 'Ten tips for online tutors’ http://www.kineo.com/resources/top-tips/learning-strategy-and-design/ten-tips-for-online-tutors (accessed 4 February 2015)
Weller, M (2002) ‘Delivering Learning on the Net: the why, what and how of online education’ Routledge
Wenger, E, McDermott, R, W, M Snyder (eds) (2002) ‘Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA
Wheeler, S (2012) ‘Theories for the digital age: Connectivism’ http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/theories-for-digital-age-connectivism.html (accessed 8 February 2015)
