facilitating online learning: a descriptive study

21

Click here to load reader

Upload: sophie

Post on 16-Mar-2017

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education2001, Vol. 22, No.2, pp. 264-84© ODLAA Inc.

Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

Many authors cite the potential of Web-based technologies fortransforming education. However, little research has been done toexplore what skills are required. This paper reports a four-phase studyconducted to clarify the role of the facilitator and to identify otherfactors that support or inhibit online learning. Postgraduate studentswho had participated in online learning were asked to rate the relativeimportance of 12 facilitator tasks. Next, students and lecturers wereinterviewed to determine factors that influence the success of onlinecourses. Results show that facilitators must clarify expectations,initiate and guide online discussions and explain assessment criteria.

Introduction

Web-based technologies for teaching and learning are described asrevolutionary (Lockwood & Gooley 2001) and 'transformational'(Salmon 2000). There is consensus in current education literature thatonline facilitation is the teaching mode of the future (Ryan et al. 2000).Yet, there is a dearth of literature on how technologies, such as Web-based learning tools, can be used for teaching and learning (Hara & Kling1999). Strategies for implementing the new Web-based technologies needto be founded on good teaching practice (Housego & Freeman 2000).While much has been written about the technology and its potential, verylittle has been written about what the teachers and learners actually doonline (Salmon 2000, p. 11). This study focusses on the teacher-studentinteraction and the student-student interaction in the online learningenvironment.

Successful online learning depends on teachers acquiring newcompetencies. They need to be aware of the potential of the technology inorder to inspire their students. They do not need to master the technology(Salmon 2000, p. viii). The challenge facing us as educators using Web-based technologies is to 'learn from the experience of others, toencourage and evaluate educational innovation, so that all of us canachieve our full potential' (Lockwood & Gooley 2001, p. 2). Thedescriptive study that is reported in this paper is a response to thischallenge. It draws on the initial experiences of staff and studentsengaged in Web-based teaching and learning, to explore the lecturer's

264

Page 2: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

role as a facilitator of learning. It also reveals other factors that maysupport or inhibit learning in the new Web-based learning environment.We see this work as part of an ongoing evaluation process that will informour online teaching practices in the future.

Some educational designers have explored ways that the Web can be usedto support face-to-face teaching by providing students with relevantcourse information, online access to a vast array of multimedia learningresources, as well as 'forums for continuing class discussion'(Horton 2000, p. x). Bates (1995) and others (Lockwood & Gooley 2001;Salmon 2000) have focussed on exploring the ways that new technologiescan support distance education and open learning, where the teaching isoften carried out entirely online. In this study, lecturers used Web-basedteaching tools to support 'an online component' of their graduate levelcourses that were conducted either entirely in distance mode or in acombination of face-to-face teaching (block teaching) and distance mode.

Background

The Centre for Public Health (CPH) at the University of New SouthWales (UNSW) has offered a flexible post graduate program of study inpublic health to both internal and external students since 1997. Initially,the courses offered for external study were designed as predominantlyprint-based, self directed learning, supplemented with on-campus'residential' workshops and some use of teleconferencing for additionalstudent support.

In 1997, a few lecturers began to experiment with online delivery usingWeb-based classroom management tools (e.g. TopCIass & LearningSpace). They redesigned their courses to incorporate student participationin online discussion groups, which were facilitated by the lecturer. In1998 and 1999, nine additional courses were designed for online learning,so that by February 2001, the Public Health students at UNSW were ableto choose from a total of 15 courses that included an online component.

Each of these 15 Masters of Public Health (MPH) courses includes aresidential workshop, a set of printed notes with associated readings andthe online component, created using WebCT and designed primarily toprovide a platform for interaction. Some lecturers have chosen to includeadditional resources, such as links to other sites and self-assessmentexercises, as well as additional content through the online components.All the lecturers have used the online component to provide a place wherestudents can contribute to structured or semi-structured discussions withtheir lecturers and fellow students. It was this feature, the onlinediscussions between lecturers and their students, that we chose to study.

265

Page 3: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Synchronous vs asynchronous learning

In a traditional 'face to face' teaching model, the lecturer may facilitate adiscussion among the students by introducing a topic, encouragingparticipation, asking challenging questions, offering thoughtfulcomments/feedback, redirecting questions when necessary, andsummarising to bring closure. However, as Newble and Cannon (1994,p. 41) suggest, 'effective discussion requires communication which is notonly verbal but also non-verbal, involving, for example, gestures, facialexpressions, eye contact and posture'. Therefore, lecturers who try to usethese same teaching methods in the online environment are faced withsome challenges. The most obvious limitation on all group members inthe online discussion is the lack of both 'vocal' (tone, volume, etc.) andnon-verbal cues. In addition, the discussion is conducted'asynchronously', meaning that each group member contributes inwriting when it is convenient for them, and their comments are recordedone after the other on the computer, in a 'threaded discussion'. Thus theimplementation of traditional small group teaching techniques to theonline environment is not a trivial one. Some developers have evencreated special Web-based tools to help online lecturers achieve the goalsof small group learning more easily (Hewson & Hughes 2001).

The aim of this study was to better understand the ways that lecturers canfacilitate learning in the online environment, given the constraints ofasynchronous, computer-mediated communication. The investigatorsbelieved that the lecturer's role as a facilitator of learning was critical tothe success of online learning. Therefore, we were very interested todiscover what both students and their lecturers had to say about theirinitial experiences with this new style of learning.

Methodology

An iterative evaluation process was employed to inform our onlineteaching practices. As described more fully below, our study includedfour distinct phases. In the first phase we identified 12 facilitator tasksthat we felt were important for promoting learning in the onlineenvironment. In the second phase we conducted the student survey,seeking input from students about the facilitator tasks as well as inputabout their online experiences in general. In the third phase we conductedinterviews with students, and in the fourth phase we conducted interviewswith the lecturers. As noted above, the data were analysed after eachphase to inform the next step in the research process (Grbich 1999).These steps are described below in chronological order with the majorfindings included for each phase. A general discussion of all the findingsis presented at the end of the report, along with our conclusions.

266

Page 4: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

Our evaluation process is informed by research principles of triangulationand systematic gathering of perceptions. Specifically, we made use of thedeveloping literature in the field; we gathered information from a numberof sources; we asked teachers how the online teaching was progressing;and we asked graduate students to rate some specific aspects of theirexperiences of online learning. The information that we collected waspartly qualitative and partly categorised into quantitative data for ease ofsummary.

Phase 1: Identifying facilitator tasks

As three lecturers who use online teaching tools, our experience informedthe first phase of the evaluation. We began our study by reviewing thecurrent literature in which recommendations for effective online teachingare described (see Salmon 2000; Harasim et al. 1997; Berge 1995;Collins & Berge 1996; Paulsen 1995; Mason 1991). We kept our focus onthe role of the teacher as facilitator or moderator in online discussions,and developed a list of 12 specific tasks. Our list was drawn from both thedeveloping literature in this area and our own experiences with onlineteaching. The 12 tasks we identified reflected four major themes -'Setting the scene', 'monitoring participation', 'facilitating criticalthinking', and 'encouraging student collaboration'. These tasks andassociated themes are listed in table 1.

Phase 2: The student survey

Having identified what we believed were the most important facilitatortasks, we then sought input from our graduate students, to see whetherthey also believed these tasks were important, and to get some indicationof whether the students' lecturers were using these tasks, or strategies, intheir online teaching.

The student questionnaire consisted of three parts. In the first part weasked students to indicate whether they had or had not participated in theonline component of the course. In the second part we asked Likert Scale(1 to 5) type questions about the 12 facilitator tasks, including two aspectsof each task - their opinions about the relative importance of each task,and the extent to which their lecturer or facilitator performed the task.Students were also asked to provide examples of each of the facilitatortasks, as demonstrated in the courses they had taken. In the third part weasked open-ended questions to elicit factors that helped or hindered theironline learning. (See student questionnaire in Appendix 1.)

267

Page 5: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

TABLE 1Classification of facilitator tasks

Facilitator tasks*

• Make students welcome (Q1)• Clarify expectations for

contributing online (Q2)

• Clarify grading of theonline component (Q12)

• Monitor participation inthe online discussions (Q3)

• Contact students offline todiscuss participation (Q4)Keep the discussions ontrack (Q6)

• Bring closure to discussionby summarising (Ql 1)

• Use questions to stimulatediscussion (Q5)

• Move discussion forward(Q7)

• Stimulate reflection onstudents' comments (Q8)

• Encourage students tobuild on each others'contributions (Q9)

• Divide into groups forspecific tasks (Q10)

Themes

'Setting the scene'

'Monitoringparticipation'

'Facilitating criticalthinking'

'Promoting studentcollaboration'

References

Mason 1991, Berge 1995,Collins & Berge 1996,Harasim et al. 1997,Salmon 2000

Berge 1995, Collins &Berge 1996, Harasim et al.1997, Salmon 2000

Mason 1991, Berge 1995,Collins & Berge 1996,Harasim et al. 1997.Salmon 2000

Berge 1995, Collins &Berge 1996, Klemm &Snell 1996, Harasim et al.1997, Salmon 2000

*Bold type indicates 6 of the most important tasks, according to student ratings

Results of the student survey

The questionnaire was distributed to all students who had participated inall 1999 and 2000 MPH courses with an online component (n=262).There were 139 students who had participated in just one course with anonline component, 97 students who had participated in two courses withan online component, and 26 who had participated in three courses withonline components. A total of 89 students completed and returned thequestionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 34%. The results areindicative of student sentiment, but not generalisable to the entire studentsample, given the low response rate.

268

Page 6: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

Questionnaire, Part 1 - Reasons for non-participation

Of the 89 respondents, 11 students indicated that they did not participatein the online component of the course in which they were enrolled. Theirreasons were varied, but the majority felt the online part was an 'add on'to the course. They felt it added more time and more work and since itwas not being assessed, they had no incentive to participate. Somereported technical limitations, indicating that they felt the software wastoo slow, or they did not have access to the Internet from home.

Questionnaire, Part 2 - Ratings of importance of facilitator tasks

In part 2 the students indicated the degree of importance of each of the12 facilitator tasks on a scale of 1 to 5. Their ratings are presented in table 2.

TABLE 2Student ratings of most important facilitator tasks

Student Ratings of Most ImportantFacilitator Tasks

o

• ID) *

8 £

s a

ot)

6040

20n

Move Build on Monitor Use Questions Clarify ClarifyDiscussion Others Participation for Discussion Expectations Grading ofForw ard Corrments Online Part

Facilitator Tasks

These data show that more than 75% of students who responded believedthat the most important facilitator tasks were to:

• clarify grading of the online part (87%)

• clarify expectations (86%)

• use questions for discussion (80%)

• monitor participation (80%)

• build on others' comments (78%)

• move discussion forward (77%).

269

Page 7: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Conversely, the tasks that students rated as least important were:

• contacting offline about participation (19%); and

• dividing into groups (16%).

Questionnaire, Part 2—Ratings of lecturers' performance offacilitator tasks

In this part of the questionnaire, students were asked to indicate the extentto which their lecturer actually performed each of the 12 facilitator tasks.

TABLE 3Student ratings of lecturer performance of facilitator tasks

Student Ratings of Lecturer Performance

c•a(/}

"5oBe]

c2

Q .

8070605040302010

0WelcomeStudents

Clarify MonitorExpectations Participation

ClarifyGrading

UseQuestions for

Discussion

Facilitator Tasks

• Not Done

• Done Poorly

• Done Well

These data show that the following tasks were rated as 'Done Well' byover 40% of the respondents:

• welcoming students (67%)

• clarifying expectations (60%)

• monitoring participation (53%)

• clarifying grading of online part (47%)

• using questions for discussion (44%)

It is interesting to note that students rated four of these tasks also highly interms of their importance. Welcome students was the only task that wasrated as 'done well' by a majority of the students, but was not rated as oneof the top six tasks with regard to importance. In addition, two of thefacilitator tasks that were rated among the top six in importance (Clarify

270

Page 8: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

grading of online part and Use questions for discussion) received ratings of'not done' or 'done poorly' by one-third of the students, suggestinglecturers could improve on their performance in these two important areas.

There were two facilitator tasks - Divide into groups and Contact offline- that were rated as 'not done' by 40% of the students.

Students' examples of facilitator tasks

After rating their lecturer's performance of the task (i.e. 'not done', 'donepoorly', or 'done well'), students were asked to provide an example of thetask. Responses varied enormously, with students noting their facilitatorseither never carried out the tasks as listed or did so often. Thequestionnaire item 'used questions to trigger thought-provokingdiscussion'' illustrated this well. Whereas some students liked to bechallenged by their facilitator with provocative questions, others felt theyneeded more directive feedback. Few students provided examples, asrequested, but in some cases they offered revealing comments. Forexample, in response to the item 'stimulated reflection on what had beensaid' one student wrote 'our facilitator tried to point out different ways oflooking at what comments were made, but it is really a difficult task toachieve'. Another student noted, 'we were requested to look beyond theobvious' but did not elaborate on how this was done. These differingresponses highlighted that the design of the online environment has animpact on the role of the facilitator.

Questionnaire, Part 3—Factors that helped or hindered onlinelearning

Students were asked to list the three most important ways their facilitatorcould help them learn online. The majority agreed that the role of thefacilitator was most important in helping them with online learning.However, they noted that hardware, software and administrative issuesmust be addressed first. They suggested that group work be encouraged,but there were mixed views on whether or not the online componentshould be assessed.

When asked what factors hindered their online learning, studentsmentioned time as the biggest issue, including access to hardware andsoftware. They also noted that certain facilitator behaviours wereinhibiting -especially unclear instructions and not being online oftenenough. Other factors included the students' own lack of motivation anddiscipline, language barriers, and fear of saying something 'silly' orinappropriate.

When asked for final comments, the students mainly noted that it wasgood to connect with other students, and that the online component

271

Page 9: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

helped them to learn the subject better. They noted that online softwarewas a good tool, which has potential, but needed refining; it required bothcareful planning for increased student participation and a diligentfacilitator. There was a sense that online learning would be part of thestudent culture in the future and that it appeared to have been acceptedpassively already.

Phase 3: Semi-structured interviews with students

The next step in our study was to analyse both the quantitative andqualitative data from our student survey to identify key issues to explorefurther with a smaller sample of students. We identified four key issuesfor further investigation: (1) expectations of online learning;(2) experience with online learning; (3) the role of the online facilitator;and (4) suggestions for improvements. We then conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a sample of 12 students from thepool of 89 students who had completed the questionnaire.

Findings from student interviews

• Expectations of online learning

We anticipated that student satisfaction with online learning would bevery much dependent on their expectations of the online experience. Thisvaried quite a bit for our students who had had the full range of none,some, or a lot of experience with online discussion groups. However,many of the students said they had no expectations. After some probing,they explained that they had accepted online learning with somereservations, or perhaps apprehensions, about how it would work out forthem.

• Experiences with online learning

Students identified both positive and negative experiences. The positiveexperiences included connecting with other students, reading what othersthought about the given topics, and the convenience of online learning.One interviewee did not participate actively but benefited fromcontributions of others. Another student said 'it helps to learn the course'.Some also noted that it helped them to complete their assignments.

Students from a non-English speaking background (NESB) had mixedresponses to their online experiences. Whereas one student felt onlinewas an advantage as she could look up words she did not understand andread at her own pace (which is impossible in the 'live' classroom),someone else felt that the written language was a barrier to contributingto online discussions. Other students from English speaking backgroundsalso experienced written language as a barrier. There was 'a fear of sayingsomething silly online'.

272

Page 10: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

Some students identified their own lack of motivation and discipline.However, negative experiences predominantly related to time issues andunclear instructions from the facilitator. The time issue related to technicalhardware and software problems and slow computers. Unclear instructionsfrom facilitators led to poor quality discussions; as one student said of theonline experience, '(it) has not really affected my learning'.

• Role of the online facilitator

Students mentioned a wide range of roles for the online facilitator rangingfrom being responsible for organising the site or course, giving clearinstructions on accessing the online component, selecting appropriatecontent, to guiding discussions and responding promptly to students'questions. All interviewed students felt that it was most important thatlecturers log-on frequently and monitor and redirect the discussion asnecessary. It made them feel 'in touch' and kept them motivated.

Students stated that the quality of the facilitation was equally important.For some, quality meant having a sense of humour, being dynamic andhaving the commitment and energy for being an online facilitator. Somestudents felt that it was necessary for the facilitator to be a content expert.

• Suggestions for improvement

All interviewed students said that the software they were using was noteasy to learn and had cluttered structures. One student felt that thesoftware was designed for didactic teaching methods and had limitedscope for students to be self-directive. Another student stated that the siteneeded to be dynamic to keep her interest. One interviewee found photosand profiles of other students useful background information. Apart fromthese suggestions about improving software, students were very clear thatonline learning should only be part of a comprehensive learning package.It was suggested that online learning be supplemented with face-to-faceworkshops or other informal on-campus interactions such as live chatrooms. Some wanted easier mechanisms in place for printing onlinediscussions or conversely, to discourage students from printing materialaltogether. One student thought it important to provide incentives toparticipate, such as being assessed on quality of contributions and bymaking marking criteria transparent.

Phase 4: Semi structured interviews with lecturers

After analysing the student interview data, we sought contextual data toget a clearer understanding of the lecturers' experiences of onlinelearning. Therefore, in this final phase of the study we conducted face-to-face interviews with six of the lecturers.

273

Page 11: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Findings from lecturer interviews

Lecturers also identified both positive and negative experiences in theirrole as online facilitators. The analysis of lecturer interviews suggests thatwhile their perceptions of the role of the online facilitator were similar,the design of their courses varied, thus impacting on their role. Thestructure of the online components of the courses tended to reflect theirview of learning. For example, one lecturer viewed his role as central tothe learning process and designed his course with tightly controlledonline activities, while another used the medium for open discussion onlyto support existing notes. Yet another who was opposed to didacticteaching used it to provide students with an opportunity to extend theirlearning when discussing the preparation of their assignments.

In some cases the lecturer's expectations of online learning were high.That is, they expected students to participate frequently and in largenumbers. This then led to a sense of disappointment when the onlineexperience did not measure up. In one case, out of a class of morethan 60, only a handful of students contributed at all. In this instance thelecturer felt there were a number of reasons, including the choice ofsoftware which was considered clumsy and slow, and the lack ofintegration of the online component into the rest of the course. The smallnumber of students who did participate was not able to make up the'critical mass' which this lecturer felt was needed to 'get it [thediscussion] off the ground'. This lecturer also felt it was important toprovide some incentives for student participation, such as a contributiontowards their final assessment.

In most cases, the lecturers had modest expectations, were very aware ofthe limitations of the medium, and were pleasantly surprised by studentswho participated often and/or expressed their excitement and appreciationabout studying online. One lecturer commented 'It's a real joy to see them[the students] interact'. This same lecturer felt it improved students'assignments. Another lecturer included an online component to provideher students with easier access to required electronic resources. She feltthe online component offered more 'applicability to students' work[employment], thus making it more digestible for students'.

These positive comments were tempered by some negative ones, whichfocussed on the amount of time and effort required to both develop theonline components and to deliver them. While lecturers agreed on theimportance of responding to students regularly, some found it impossibleto fit this into their workloads. As one lecturer commented, T feeloverwhelmed with it. It is very time consuming. If it were properlyresourced it would be good. But it is not.'. The ability to experiment withfacilitation styles was also constrained by limitations on their time. While

274

Page 12: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

this was the single most important concern of all lecturers interviewed,they all acknowledged the importance of the time factor. They agreed thatputting in the time would be rewarded by a better course. The time issuemay be closely linked to career priorities. Excellence in teaching, andespecially online teaching, is not as well recognised as excellence incapacity to attract external research funding.

Another issue that lecturers grappled with was that of encouragingstudents to participate in the online environment. Making contributionscompulsory and providing encouraging, constructive feedback may fostercontributions but will never succeed in enticing all students to becomeactive online.

Other comments centred on the software itself being difficult to use, withparticular angst expressed over how the discussion area functioned. Onelecturer found his overseas students experienced numerous technicaldifficulties using the software, making it unworkable for a number of hisstudents. Another lecturer found it hard to keep up with the ever-changingsoftware programs used: 'I teach it because the university tells me to.They change the software every year so I stopped going to trainingcourses'.

All lecturers agreed that their role as online facilitators was to welcomestudents, initiate and guide discussions and to foster a sense ofcollaboration. Some lecturers noted the importance of ensuring everyonebecame involved and also of drawing on student experiences forimproved outcomes.

Implications of the study findings

Our findings suggest that a significant proportion of the MPH studentsalready accept and are willing to trial online learning. However, they arevery focussed on determining what is expected of them in the onlineenvironment. Specifically, more than 80% of the students who respondedto our survey rated two similar questionnaire items - 'Made it clear howthe online part would be assessed' and 'Made it clear what type(s) ofcontributions were expected of you' - as the most important tasks for thefacilitator. The findings from student interviews supported thisperspective, suggesting that negative experiences were often related tounclear instructions from the facilitator. These findings emphasise theimportance of the role of the facilitator in online learning. We believe thisrole can 'make or break' the success of the course.

The research reported here was conducted in 2000, and addressed coursesthat were offered in both 1999 and 2000. These were the early days ofexperimentation with online learning in our Centre and the lecturers who

275

Page 13: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

agreed to incorporate an 'online component' to their courses were allwilling volunteers. They were very reluctant to require students toparticipate in the online components or to make the online workassessable, being concerned that (1) some students may not have accessto the Internet and (2) making the work compulsory and assessable mightcause negative attitudes towards the online components.

Therefore, the sample of students who participated in these online coursecomponents and who responded to our survey must be considered 'earlyexperimenters' of the new Web-based technologies for learning andtherefore not necessarily representative of the larger population of MPHstudents. Nevertheless, we believe the opinions of both the lecturers andstudents provide interesting insights into the strengths and challenges ofthis new mode of learning.

As reported above, approximately 10% of our survey respondents (n=89)completed only Part 1 of the questionnaire, indicating that they did notparticipate in the online learning component. It is interesting to note thatthe most frequently cited reason they gave for non-participation was thatthe online component was 'not a requirement for the course'. In contrastto our expectations, very few marked any of the other reasons for non-participation, such as 'no access to a computer' or 'not feelingcomfortable with this technology'.

Despite the lecturers' apprehensions, our results indicated that only aminority of students held negative attitudes; the majority of students whocompleted the questionnaire expressed a predominantly positive attitudeof acceptance. The student interviews confirmed this finding from thequestionnaire. While acknowledging that online learning is 'a newlearning tool that needs further refinement,' the students were quiteaccepting of the new Web-based learning technologies.

The most common pitfalls identified by the students were that lecturersdid not go online regularly and failed to respond promptly to theircontributions and questions. While we were not surprised by thisresponse from students we felt it reflected a teacher-centred view of theircourse. As we have stated earlier, the design of each online coursereflected the lecturers' own philosophy of teaching to a large extent.Since many of the lecturers were supportive of a student-centredapproach we expected to see more interaction that was not initiated by thefacilitator, but rather generated by students themselves. The studentresponses suggested the usual dependence on the lecturer to initiate andguide the discussion, as is often the case in a traditional teaching model. Itcould well be, however, that lecturers need to spend more time at thebeginning of the course 'setting the scene', including briefing students onhow to organise and participate in student-directed online discussions.

276

Page 14: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

Once these student-directed discussions start to happen, the lecturer's rolechanges to one of 'monitoring participation' in which they offerencouragement to those students who are demonstrating greaterleadership and independence.

We believe a limitation of our study is the limited experience our studentshad had with online learning. Many of the students we sampled hadparticipated in two or even three different MPH courses with an onlinecomponent. Thus, we assumed these students would have had sufficientexposure to a variety of online facilitation styles to have formed opinionsabout which facilitator tasks were most important. However, the students'responses to the questionnaire suggested otherwise. They rated most ofthe facilitator tasks in the questionnaire as highly important. However,they did not give consistent ratings as to whether or not these facilitatortasks were actually performed, and they did not provide any examples.

We were curious about this pattern in their responses and considered threepossible interpretations. Firstly, students simply might not have beenwilling to give the time to completing the questionnaire in that muchdetail. Secondly, perhaps they didn't have enough experienceparticipating in a facilitated online discussion to understand the tasksdescribed. Thirdly, they might have been so focussed on mastering thetechnical skills of the new technology that they simply did not pay muchattention to the facilitation aspect, and were less focussed on how thismode of delivery did or did not support their learning. All three possibleinterpretations suggested that the questionnaire might have been toodetailed for most students.

Specifically, students rated the items 'working in groups' and 'contactingstudents offline' as the least important of the 12 tasks. However, webelieve that very few students actually experienced either of thesefacilitator tasks. For example, only one course divided students into smallgroups. This leads us to conclude that these tasks were not meaningful forstudents. It does not mean that 'contacting students offline' and 'dividingthem into groups' are not effective facilitator tasks, but rather it meansthat these tasks were not relevant for our students since they did notexperience them. In addition, these tasks would most likely be consideredmore important to the lecturer than to students, as they reflect tasks thatare necessary for managing disruptive or non-participating students andfor managing complex learning activities with larger groups of students.

Towards best practice guidelines for facilitating online learning

Our findings indicate that online learning can take many forms and can beused in conjunction with diverse teaching styles, but the role of the

277

Page 15: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

facilitator is critical to its success. Students in our sample indicated awillingness to experiment with the new Web-based technologies forlearning, but clearly indicated a need for direction from their lecturers inhow to navigate and negotiate with others in the new learningenvironment. We believe this does not require a return to teacher-centredlearning, but rather a need for lecturers to become more familiar withWeb-based learning strategies and to explore the potential of these newtechnologies with their students.

More research is needed to see which facilitation strategies are mosteffective in a variety of learning contexts, and to understand better thetime and structural requirements for effective online groups. Even at thisstage with these descriptive evaluative results, we would suggest aninitial set of guidelines for facilitating online learning.

Guidelines for facilitating online learning

Our findings from both students and lecturers indicate that successfulonline learning requires careful planning and is dependent upon a fewcritical factors.These factors include:

• Technically reliable software and hardware systems, including supportfor students and lecturers when they encounter technical problems.

• Software that is easy to learn to use (by both students and lecturers)and supports a variety of teaching and facilitation styles.

• Commitment of time from lecturers and students.

• Departmental/teaching staff agreement on 'rules of participation' foronline students.

In addition, we believe those lecturers who are interested in experimentingwith online facilitation will find the following guidelines helpful.

'Setting the scene'

• Provide clear guidelines for student participation in the onlinecomponent, including what constitutes acceptable and unacceptablecontributions.

• Clearly specify your own role in online discussions, as either groupleader/moderator or group member.

• Respond promptly to individual student comments and queries whenestablishing the group, and specify when (e.g. Mondays and Thursdaysat 6:00 pm) you will be available online, once the group is functioningappropriately.

• Provide clear criteria for assessment of the online learning activities.

278

Page 16: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

'Monitoring participation'

• Monitor student participation in the online discussions to encourageactive involvement and discourage any non-productive or disruptivebehaviour.

• Monitor the quality of the online discussion to make sure thediscussion stays 'on track'.

'Facilitating critical thinking'

• Experiment with online facilitation strategies such as questioning,summarising, redirecting and introducing new material to stimulatecritical thinking and keep the discussion interesting/dynamic.

'Promoting student collaboration'

• Encourage student-centred learning by helping students learn to buildon each other's contributions, rather than interacting primarily with thelecturer/facilitator.

References

Bates, A.W. 1995, Technology, Open Learning and Distance Education,Routledge, London.

Berge, Z.L. 1995, The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator, [Online].Available: <http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~mpc3/moderate/teach_online.html>[Accessed June 2001].

Collins, M. & Berge, Z. 1996, Facilitating interaction in computer mediatedonline courses, background paper for FSU/AECT Distance EducationConference, Tallahassee FL, June.

Grbich, C. 1999, Qualitative Research in Health, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Hara, N. & Kling, R. 1999, 'Student's frustrations with a Web-based distanceeducation course', FirstMonday, vol.4, no. 12 [Online]. Available: <http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html> [Accessed June 2001].

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. & Turoff, M. 1997, Learning Networks A FieldGuide to Teaching and Learning Online, The MIT Press, Cambridge,England.

Hewson, L. & Hughes, C. 2001, 'Generic structures for online teaching andlearning', in Innovation in Open and Distance Learning: SuccessfulDevelopment of Online and Web-based Learning, eds F. Lockwood &A. Gooley, Kogan Page Limited, London.

Horton, S. 2000, Web Teaching Guide: A Practical Approach to Creating CourseWeb Sites, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

Housego, S. & Freeman, M. 2000, 'Case studies: Integrating the use of Webbased systems into student learning, Australian Journal of EducationalTechnology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 258-82.

279

Page 17: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Lockwood, F. & Gooley, A. (eds) 2001, Innovation in Open and DistanceLearning: Successful Development of Online and Web-based Learning,Kogan Page, London.

Mason, R. 1991, Moderating Educational Computer Conferencing [Online]DEOSNEWS vol. 1, no. 19 Archived as DEOSNEWS 91-00011 on<LISTSERV@PSUVM> [Accessed June 2001].

Newble, D. & Cannon, R.A. 1994, A Handbook for Teachers in Universities &.Colleges: A Guide to Improving Teaching Methods, Kogan Page, London.

Paulsen, M.F. 1995, The Online Report on Pedagogical Techniques for Computer-Mediated Communication, [Online]. Available: <http://www.nettskolen.com/forskning/19/cmcped.html> [Accessed June 2001].

Ryan, S., Scott, B., Freeman, H. & Patel, D. 2000, The Virtual University: TheInternet and resource-based learning, Kogan Page, London.

Salmon, G. 2000, E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online,Kogan Page, London.

Patricia Youngblood is a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health andCommunity Medicine, and education consultant in the Curriculum Unit, Faculty ofMedicine, UNSW. Address: Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales,Sydney NSW 2052 <[email protected]>

Franziska Trede is an associate lecturer in Health Promotion, Address: School ofPublic Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, SydneyNSW 2052 <[email protected]>

Sophie di Corpo is a lecturer and instructional designer. Address: School of PublicHealth and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney NSW2052 <[email protected]>

280

Page 18: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

Appendix 1: Student Questionnaire

Facilitating Online Learning Questionnaire

Course name:(formerly subject e.g. Introduction to Public Health)

Parti:Please tick the appropriate box.

I participated in the online learning component of this course:O Yes d No

If you did not participate was it because:D No access to a computer

LJ Not feel comfortable with the technology

L) Not a requirement of the course

LJ Lack of lime

LJ Other, please specify:

Part 2:For each statement below:

a. Rate the level of importance by circling a number (1 not at allimportant - 5 very important)

b. Tick the box that best describes your lecturer's performancec. If you can, please provide an example

Your Facilitator:

1. Communicated with you 'online' in a way that made you feelwelcome and comfortable in this electronic environment:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly L J Done Well L J Not Done L Jc. Example:

281

Page 19: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

2. Made it clear at the beginning what type(s) of onlinecontributions were expected of you in this part of the course:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly L J Done Well L J Not Done L J

c. Example:

3. Monitored student participation in the online discussions:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly L J Done Well L J Not Done L J

c. Example:

4. Contacted you outside of the online environment to discussyour participation, eg. By private email or phone:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly O Done Well L~j" Not Done L"J

c. Example:

5. Used questions to trigger thought-provoking discussion:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly L J Done Well O Not Done L J

c. Example:

6. Kept the discussions on track:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly L J Done Well L J Not Done L J

c. Example:

282

Page 20: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Patricia Youngblood, Franziska Trede and Sophie Di Corpo

7. Moved the discussion forward by stimulating critical thinking:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly L J Done Well L J Not Done LJ

c. Example:

8. Stimulated reflection on what had been said:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly L J Done Well L J Not Done LJ

C. Example:

9. Encouraged students to build on each other's contributions:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly L J Done Well O Not Done LJ*

c. Example:

10. Divided the class into small groups for specific tasks:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly CD Done Well L J Not Done L J

c. Example:

11. Brought the discussion to a close by summarising what hasalready been said:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly L J Done Well D Not Done L J

c. Example:

283

Page 21: Facilitating online learning: A descriptive study

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

12. Made it clear how the online part of the course would beassessed/graded:

a. Level of importance (not important) 1 2 3 4 5 (very important)

b. Done Poorly • Done Well L J Not Done •

c. Example:

13. What do you think are the 3 most important things that yourfacilitator can do to help you learn online?123

14. What do you think are 3 things that hinder your onlinelearning?123

15. My final comments on online learning are:

284