Students’ Perceptions Towards Interaction in the Discussion Forum and Their

Satisfaction with a Distance Course: a Case Study in a Non-Profit Organization

Maria Eleonora Segura

A Thesis in the Field of Educational Technologies

for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies

Harvard University

March 2008

Abstract

This research project focuses on the analysis of students’ perceptions of their

satisfaction with a postgraduate distance learning course, and in particular their opinions

concerning their interaction in forum discussions. The program under analysis was

developed on the basis of a model to launch a distance learning education strategy in

institutions that are new to this teaching methodology.

The case under analysis is a postgraduate distance learning course recently

offered by AEDIN, an Argentinean non-profit institution devoted to protecting children

suffering from neurological diseases. In 2004, AEDIN developed a residential

postgraduate course in Assistive Technology. Two years later AEDIN decided to

transform this course into a distance education program for which an e-learning strategy

had to be implemented and the course had to be re-designed.

Data for the analysis was obtained through different methods: the observation of

students’ interventions in the discussion forum, the results of satisfaction surveys

conducted among students, as well as the results from fieldwork based on focus groups

with groups of students.

The study revealed that when evaluating a distance program, students prioritize

content quality, exercises with practical applications and response times from course

facilitators. It also showed that group interaction is a desired objective by students

although not a prerequisite for them to feel satisfied with the learning process.

Additionally, the study helped to detect factors that may facilitate interaction and create

opportunities for improvement in future course implementations. The study also

describes the process involved and criteria applied in the course design as well as the

difficulties that impact dialog interaction among participants.

Even though this is a case analysis performed in a particular context that can not

be generalized, it enabled the application of a model to launch a distance learning project

that could be perfected in future implementations by focusing more on the creation of a

student learning community. The analysis of the case also shed light on the factors that

influence peer interaction and course satisfaction from a student’s perspective. Thus, this

study may eventually allow focusing more precisely on these aspects, which were

identified by students themselves, so as to contribute to the development of future

programs, especially in a non-profit environment.

v

Acknowledgments

This thesis fills me with pride and I would like to share this feeling with all the

people who made it possible.

I would like to thank Dr. Catalina Laserna, who has been my professor, counselor,

supervisor and who has acted as a mentor ever since I started my studies at Harvard

initially pursuing a Certificate in Technologies for Education and later an ALM in

Educational Technologies.

My gratitude to Stacie Cassat Green, the professor in charge of the first course I

took at Harvard. She guided me throughout the entire learning experience and beyond the

official academic boundaries, and she entrusted me with a teaching assistantship in the

first virtual version of the course “Introduction to Educational Technologies” (EDUCE-

102) at Harvard.

I would also like to thank my research advisor, Alvaro Galvis, for his guidance

and encouragement to go deeper into the conclusions of the case.

My thanks to Jorge Trujillo, my English teacher in Argentina, who has helped me

brush up on my narrative skills to perfect the quality of my work.

I am very thankful to my postgraduate mate Denise Grey with whom I shared the

entire ALM learning process. Thanks to her for keeping me posted on the master’s

program latest news and for assisting me at a distance.

vi

I also want to thank my family and friends for supporting me throughout this

tough process. In particular, my thanks to Luján who has always encouraged me to take

it to the next level by facing new challenges, and to Sebas who has read these pages

several times and has always encouraged me to go on.

My gratitude to AEDIN for letting the case be a source of knowledge. Thanks to

the postgraduate course coordinators and the entire academic team who provided me with

information to complete my work.

Finally, many thanks to the postgraduate course students who participated in the

surveys and the students of the focus group whose comments enlightened the analysis of

the case.

Thank you all.

vii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................v

List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................ix

List of Figures...........................................................................................................................x

Glossary of Terms ...................................................................................................................xi

I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

II. Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................4

Dialog in Distance Education......................................................................................4

Computer Mediated Communication .........................................................................8

Factors Promoting Interaction...................................................................................10

Student Communities.................................................................................................13

Tutors’ Role................................................................................................................15

III. Distance Education Model..............................................................................................18

A Systems Model for Distance Education ...............................................................18

Start-up Distance Education Model..........................................................................21

Stage 1: Context Analysis .............................................................................23

Stage 2: Distance Education Framework .....................................................28

Stage 3: Distance Course Design..................................................................34

Stage 4: E-learning Culture ...........................................................................38

IV. Case History ....................................................................................................................42

AEDIN's Institutional Context ..................................................................................42

viii

AEDIN’s Distance Education Framework ...............................................................47

Postgraduate Course Design......................................................................................51

AEDIN’s E-learning Culture.....................................................................................60

V. Research Methods ............................................................................................................66

Research Limitations .................................................................................................69

VI. Students´ Perceptions .....................................................................................................70

Course Evaluation Factors.........................................................................................70

Forum Exchange and Exercise Directions ...............................................................75

Factors that Impact on Students’ Participation ........................................................78

Other Communication Tools .....................................................................................81

Role of Academic Team ............................................................................................82

Course Community ....................................................................................................87

Opportunities of Improvement..................................................................................91

VII. Summary and Conclusions ...........................................................................................94

Summary Discussion .................................................................................................94

Conclusions ..............................................................................................................103

Final thoughts...........................................................................................................104

Appendix 1 Step by Step Guide ..........................................................................................106

Appendix 2 Focus Group Questionnaire Guide .................................................................107

Appendix 3 Surveys' Results ...............................................................................................108

Appendix 4 Forum Observation Rates................................................................................113

Bibliography .........................................................................................................................114

ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Forum observation summary ..................................................................................76

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. Systems Model for Distance Education................................................................18

Figure 2. Start-up Distance Education Model ......................................................................21

Figure 3. Distance Class Model.............................................................................................37

Figure 4. Postgraduate Program Modules.............................................................................53

Figure 5. AEDIN´s Class Model ...........................................................................................55

Figure 6. Class structure in the Platform ..............................................................................58

Figure 7. Sample of Exercises ...............................................................................................59

xi

Glossary of Terms

A.E.D.I.N.: Asociación en Defensa del Infante Neurológico meaning Association

for the Neurologically Impaired Child.

Assistive Technology: therapeutic treatment that uses assistive, adaptive, and

rehabilitation devices to promote independence for people with disabilities by enabling

them to perform tasks that they were formerly unable to accomplish. (For more

information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology)

Blended learning: is a common term used in e-learning and expresses mixed

learning, i.e. in the same course there are sections learned at a distance while others are

face-to-face.

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC): communication that takes place

electronically using computer technology.

Dialog1: Informal talk between two people or more who alternatively express

their ideas or feelings.

1 In distance education, the terms dialog, interaction, and participation refer to similar actions.

Dialog and interaction refer to some kind of conversation that takes place in the course environment. This

conversation or exchange of ideas can take place among the different participants involved. Additionally, a

student is said to participate in a course when there is evidence that he or she intervenes or takes part in

such course. Participation is also manifested by means of dialog or interaction.

Considering the above, it becomes clear why the literature about the topic uses the terms dialog, interaction

and participation as synonyms.

xii

Distance education: is a planned learning that normally occurs in a different place

from teaching, requiring special course design and instruction techniques, communication

through various technologies, and special organization and administrative arrangements

(Moore & Kearsley, 2005).

E-learning: learning that occurs through the use of Internet technology.

Interaction1: Mutual or reciprocal action existing between two (or more) people or

objects.

Methodology: a set or system of methods, principles, and rules for regulating a

given discipline. Method: procedure, technique, or way of doing something.

Participation1: Taking part in an activity.

1

Chapter I

Introduction

A.E.D.I.N.2 is a civil non-profit association devoted to educating and

rehabilitating infants and young children with neurological challenges. Supported by an

interdisciplinary team, AEDIN is an expert leader in treating people with disabilities.

This association has been making extensive use of assistive technology3 over the years,

and has thus become a source of knowledge for professionals in this field.

In 2004, AEDIN decided to develop a Postgraduate Residential Course on

Assistive Technology. Demand for the program turned out to be huge because it was the

only one teaching Assistive Technology topics in Spanish. Potential students living far

from Buenos Aires, in the country and abroad, expressed their interest in participating in

the program, but mentioned the impossibility of moving from their current residences and

abandoning their personal/professional lives for one year. In order to respond to this

situation AEDIN decided to transform the postgraduate course into a distance education

program.

2 As noted in the Glossary, A.E.D.I.N.: Asociación en Defensa del Infante Neurológico meaning

Association for the Neurologically Impaired Child.

3 As noted in the Glossary: Assistive Technology is a therapeutic treatment that uses assistive,

adaptive, and rehabilitative devices to promote independence for people with disabilities by enabling them

to perform tasks that they were formerly unable to accomplish.

2

By the end of 2005, I was hired as a distance education consultant to re-design

AEDIN´s residential program into a distance modality. As the Institution was new to

distance education, before starting the design of the course, I had to define the

Institutional Distance Education Strategy, i.e. the institutional philosophy and framework

for distance education courses.

The first steps of the project involved analyzing the organization’s context and

defining key aspects of the distance education strategy. A team composed of teachers,

program coordinators, and myself had to define: the contents to be taught, the type of

program the institution wanted to develop according to its background, and the

technology that would support content and communication at a distance.

Once the initial definitions were made, I started working on the course design

with a team of content experts. The design involved tasks such as processing content

provided by teachers, developing lesson materials and defining exercises. During this

phase, I focused extensively on the communication aspects of the program and got

involved in tasks such as defining the best medium to promote communication,

introducing exercises to enable student participation and interaction and training tutors in

order to facilitate online conversations.

In order to be completed at a distance the program had to be reorganized and

exercises included in the lessons had to be adapted. As the program involves a high

quantity of practice with patients, a component of the course remained face-to-face and

an intensive residential practice module was was designed for students to complete before

graduating.

This paper analyzes the process involved in defining a distance education

3

framework and the steps and criteria followed to design AEDIN’s program. Based on

literature and authors in the field, my thesis describes the model I propose and identifies

lessons learned throughout the project phases that may result in further improvements in

this particular case, which may provide insight for other distance education designers.

As my main concerns in course design were communication issues, I particularly

analyzed students´ perceptions about participation in the forum, as well as their

suggestions for improvement. In order to hear their opinions, I organized two focus

groups that took place as students completed their face-to-face practical module. I also

used data obtained from two surveys conducted among students done by the middle and

end of the year. Finally, I observed student participation in the forum in order to detect

interaction.

4

Chapter II

Theoretical Framework

My thesis mostly emphasizes communication aspects during the design phase of a

distance course. Therefore, before introducing the analysis of the course, this section

makes reference to the theoretical framework regarding communication in distance

education. In the following paragraphs, I describe Moore’s Distance Educational

Transactional Theory, the role of dialog in distance education, mediums that enable

communication, factors that have an impact on interaction, the importance of student

community, and the role of tutors.

Dialog in Distance Education

Several authors have stated that dialog is a fundamental need in distance

education. The two-way communication between student and tutor (Baath, 1980), the

dialog among students and instructor (Holmberg, 1981; Moore & Kearsley 1996), the

interaction among students and the cooperation arising from such interaction (Paloff &

Pratt, 1999) are central factors in the distance learning process.

Holmberg (1981) states that there is a specific kind of conversation called “guided

didactic conversation” between teacher and student. This conversation occurs in two

ways: through the dialog between both parties using the available means of

communication that the course provides (computer mediated communication, phone, etc);

5

and through the texts simulating a guided conversation (due to the way in which they are

expressed).

Moore’s Transactional Distance Theory (Moore & Kearsley, 1996), one of the

most cited theories when it comes to defining the concept of dialog, also refers to dialog

as a variable to improve the distance learning experience. Moore does not define

transactional distance as the physical separation between student and instructor, but as a

pedagogical distance. In order to overcome the possible communication gap and potential

misunderstandings caused by distance, it becomes imperative to guide students either by

means of dialog or course structure. That is to say, Moore interprets dialog and structure

as two variables affecting the learning process in the following manner:

• When the course structure is rigid (all the course elements are pre-

established), the dialog between teacher and student decreases and

transactional distance can be increased.

• On the contrary, if the course is flexible, students are given direction and

guidelines through a dialog with the teacher and transactional distance is

shortened.

• When there is neither dialog nor predefined structure, students should decide

by themselves how to proceed. This brings a third component into

consideration: the student’s autonomy (which is proportional to transactional

distance).

Based on several recent research studies, Gorsky & Caspi (2005) state that the

Transactional Distance Theory can be demonstrated only partially; however, they

6

continue to regard dialog as a key variable. After having analyzed different studies that

attempt to apply Moore’s theory, these authors discovered that such a theory does not

include operating definitions for its application and that the relationship between

variables is ambiguous. As a result, they proposed a theory restricted to the “dialog”

variable: the more dialog interaction, the shorter the transactional distance separating

students from instructors.

The following is a description of the different types of interaction4 existing in the

field of distance education. As a rule, interaction and dialogue are used as synonyms.

According to Moore (1989), there are three types of student-centered dialog or

interaction: student-content, student-instructor and student-student.

• Interaction between student and content refers to the interaction of students

with the course materials designed to acquire the knowledge. Adequate course

structure and content design together with instructor’s directions are required

to facilitate interaction.

• Interaction between student and instructor is based on the tasks the teacher

does in order to facilitate the online learning process: he/she introduces the

content, guides the process, stimulates and motivates students, provides

feedback and evaluates learning, among other tasks. Best results from this

interaction can be achieved only by training instructors in special distance

learning teaching skills.

4 In the thesis, when referring to interaction I mean group interaction among students and between

students and tutors.

7

• Interaction among students, which adds a new dimension to the interaction

observed in the first generation of distance education programs, refers to the

dialog among group participants. It is a collaborative exchange of information

and ideas among group members. The dialog level among classmates will

depend on factors such as course design (that should include activities meant

to motivate exchange of ideas) as well as on the role the instructor plays in

fostering cooperation. Ongoing interaction generates cooperation ties among

participants that in some courses may develop into a learning community.

Hillman, Willis & Gundawardena (1994) consider another level of interaction:

student-interface. Such interaction between the student and technology becomes

necessary because the student will have to interact with technology in order to have

access to the course content and be able to communicate with instructors and peers. The

interface should be designed in such a way so as to facilitate interaction. It should also be

friendly enough so that the student can concentrate on the learning process and

interaction with others rather than investing long hours in figuring out the interface

functions.

When designing the interface, it is important to consider that users have their own

ideas concerning specific interface functions and do not always perceive what it actually

offers. Norman (1993) describes people’s perceptions of what technology has to offer as

“perceived affordances” and he suggests that the interface should make its properties

explicit and visible to facilitate its use by students.

Finally, Garcia Aretio (2001) adds another interaction level between the student

and the institution offering the course. This kind of interaction involves factors such as:

8

administrative issues (registration, payment, etc.), technical support and program

assessment (granting certificates/credits, or students’ course satisfaction level).

Computer Mediated Communication

There are several types of technological media that facilitate interaction among

participants in a distance learning course. There is no single technological resource that

may be regarded as ideal to cover all communicative needs. The choices of

communication media vary from one student to another (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Chute,

Thompson & Hancock, 1999). In short, learning will depend on the students’ profile and

the course content and design rather than on the chosen communication resource itself

(Moore & Kearsley, 1996).

The CMC5 most frequently used in e-learning environments is text-based, which

can be categorized into two types depending on the moment of connection: synchronous

communication and asynchronous communication. Synchronous communication media

are those having a simultaneous connection; i.e. all parties involved are present at the

same time. Asynchronous communication, on the contrary, is time independent and does

not require all parties involved to be present and available at the same time.

Chat rooms, discussion forums6 and e-mail are the most commonly used text-

5 As noted in Glossary CMC means Computed mediated communication. See Glossary for full

description.

6 There are other alternative names for discussion forums such as discussion lists, online

discussions, bulletin board, etc.

9

based media. E-mail is generally used as a form of individual communication. Chatting is

a synchronous form of communication in which online conversations take place in real

time (simultaneously), and participants may interact in groups. The discussion forum is

an asynchronous form of communication that fosters group dialog where posted

comments will remain permanently for future reference. These different types of

communication media have several purposes, chat rooms may contribute toward

socialization among the members of the community, while forums are recommended for

debates and group interaction, and e-mail is a good choice to deliver notices or warnings

and offer individual feedback.

Literature emphasizes the advantage of asynchronous media for educational

purposes (Collison, Elbaum, Haavind & Tinker, 2000; Horton, 2000; Chute et al., 1999;

Katz, 1999). The purpose of the discussion forum is to make inquiries and generate

dialog interaction among participants in order to exchange thoughts and ideas. When a

new topic is posted on a discussion forum, participants have the advantage of choosing

when to post a response in accordance with their own learning pace. Consequently,

students have more time to reflect upon and create a response. They can also review

previous comments as well as the course contents before posting an answer.

On the other hand, chat rooms take place in real time requiring immediate

responses and do not spare time for reflection. Some students feel pressed to respond

promptly and doubt their ability to transmit their knowledge. Chat rooms have no

organized structure, thus dialog follow-up is difficult and students often feel

overwhelmed by unconnected conversations. Nevertheless, chat rooms can be important

in creating a learning community because they permit one-to-one conversations (Horton,

10

2000). They are complementary to discussion forums because they develop socialization

among participants and help members to come together.

CMC facilitates collaborative learning; however, by itself the media cannot help

the learning process to further develop; establishing an environment, an identity, and a

sense of group belonging are essential conditions to achieve such a purpose (Arango,

2003).

Factors Promoting Interaction

Presently, education methods are adopting a more collaborative approach in

which interaction among peers is highly valued and is key to the learning process (Slavin,

1995; Koschmann, 1993; Paloff & Pratt, 1999; Gunawardena, 2004). Group learning

provides an opportunity to interact with people from different environments and cultures

who contribute with their different views, experiences and interpretations. Such a

diversity of articulated and shared ideas becomes the source of new questions and further

interactions, building up knowledge among participants (Scardamalia & Beretier, 2003;

Marques de Oliveira, 2001; Gunawardena, 2004).

Nevertheless, the benefits of collaborative learning are not enough to trigger and

promote interaction. Results of a research study (Webb, Jones, Barrer & van Schaik,

2004), revealed that even though a high percentage of students (76%) regards discussion

forums as a positive experience, only a small percentage participates actively (14%); the

rest participates exclusively through reading and searching for information on the forum.

The reason for this is that even though students place high value on the content of the

11

discussion, they do not participate unless they can contribute with something concrete

and they are unwilling to repeat ideas already posted (Ke, 2004; Lobry de Bruyn, 2004).

Besides, interaction among students is goal oriented; it does not take place just by mere

participation (McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes & Vrasidas, 1999; Lobry de Bruyn, 2004).

These criteria match the opinions of Gorsky, Caspi & Trumper (2004) who argue

that, as a rule, distance education theories place high value on dialogue but this is not

applicable. In their studies, these authors emphasize that dialog is normally intrapersonal

(student with himself/herself) until the student comes across a reason to rely on

interpersonal dialog either with the instructor or with other participants.

Therefore, instructors should take into account and encourage participation in

discussion forums, a recommended form of communication to foster interaction among

students. Discussion forums with a low level of interaction discourage students and

eventually lead to an even smaller participation. On the other hand, a stable forum invites

consistent participation. However, excessive participation may overwhelm students, who

will then have to devote more time to reading posts (too many comments or extensive

posts) thus discouraging active participation in the long run. As a result, the role of the

online facilitator will be critical to motivating and keeping reasonable participation

levels.

In many cases, interaction with other peers in a course environment does not

come from intrinsic motivation but from an extrinsic specific demand required by the

course activities. Some authors (Shin, 2002) warn that mandatory interaction may turn

out to be counterproductive given the resulting interference with the student’s autonomy

(a characteristic feature of distance learning that allows students to make progress at their

12

own time and pace.) In short, students prefer that interaction with peers be given as an

option and not as an obligation. In spite of this, Haavind (2005) recommends that

instructors demand students’ interaction in discussion forums, and associates

participation levels with the scores students are given.

It is worth mentioning that there are other reasons why students may feel

unwilling to participate: when there is an overload of study materials; when they feel

there is no sense of community among participants (Shin, 2002) or because they consider

it unfair that some members participate more that others (Ke, 2004). The most common

participation barrier is the lack of immediate response; students feel unsatisfied when

they do not receive feedback timely (McIsaac et. al, 1990; Woods, 2003; Haavind, 2005;

Santilli & Beck, 2005).

Another important factor influencing participation is the technological aspect.

Researchers agree that students need support to clear the obstacles of technology in

distance learning programs (White, 2000; Stanton, 2001; Davies, Ramsay, Lindfield &

Couperthwaite, 2005). Due to the fact that students have different computer skills,

orientation and step-by-step guidelines are essential components to facilitate access to the

study material and to encourage interaction. There is a gap between people who possess

advanced computer skills and those who do not. Students having more experience are

able to find learning resources very easily, which results in greater autonomy and

interaction. These students are the ones who make the most inquiries and they usually

leave behind other participants with less experience needing more support (Chang, 2002).

Thus, the breach between experienced and inexperienced learners broadens even more.

Finally, the type of Internet access (broadband or dial-up) plays an important role since

13

students having Internet connection constraints will reduce chances of interaction.

Additionally, we should take into account that the support students need is not

limited to technological issues. Participants need to be introduced to the e-learning

culture as a new learning methodology. They have to become familiar with the guidelines

and procedures in order to interact online since a thorough understanding of the reasons

that motivate students to interact will have a positive impact on the level of interaction

(Horton, 2000; Ke, 2004; Haavind, 2005; Chang, 2002; Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005).

Student Communities

Dialog and students’ participation through CMC tools are elements that may lead

to the creation of a virtual community in a distance education course. A virtual

community is built on the grounds of common, shared objectives that require interaction

among community members. Participants interact in a common space using an identity

and a series of shared rules. Depending on the kind of interaction students may have, the

virtual group may evolve into a more advanced virtual community, such as a learning or

knowledge-building community.

In her investigation on building online communities, Brown (2001) states that a

sense of community develops among participants only if they wish to do so. Some

students in a certain course might feel they belong to the community while others might

not. Generally, students in a course come from different cultures and have different styles

(or languages). In order to generate a sense of belonging, students prefer to begin

working on more structured activities so as not to openly disclose such cultural

14

differences (Wegerif, 1998), and they would rather incorporate more independent tasks at

a later time. The development of a sense of community is a gradual process, and

community-building activities (Woods, 2003) can be visualized as a scaffolding structure

supporting the community. Preserving a space for personal introductions, giving

immediate and regular feedback, generating dialogue through group discussions, and

personalizing responses are some positive strategies when it comes to building up such

communal scaffold.

Building a community in a course is fundamental to creating online discussions.

The sense of community promotes participation and leads to collaborative learning.

Collison et al. (2000) suggests that online communities are healthy when participants post

comments on a regular basis, when there is a sense of identity and a shared common

language, and when cooperation becomes evident because members provide feedback

and support each other.

Some researchers define communities immersed in a course as “learning

communities” (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1997) or “knowledge building communities”

(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). Beyond the differences that some theorists insist on

pointing out, both communities share the following features: the central goal for both

communities is the acquisition of collective knowledge, which turns out to be greater than

individual contributions. Unlike traditional classes, in which the exchange of knowledge

occurs mostly between instructor and student, in these communities discussion becomes a

means for exchanging ideas. Such exchange generates questions that push knowledge

forward through new understanding or further questions.

Additionally, students play several roles and exhibit different expertise levels

15

enriching interaction through the diversity of ideas. Depending on their level of expertise,

members can be defined as beginners or experts. Initially, beginners play a peripheral

role. However, their queries arising from inexperience are fundamental because they

force other expert members to revise concepts that had been taken for granted, and

consequently improve and refine the collective knowledge (Scardamalia, 2002). The

participation of masters, on the other hand, is critical to sustain the community over time.

Their participation can help to create community, but when they no longer participate

they hinder the formation of community (Brown, 2001)

Most students consider that the construction of a community is essential to the

learning process. However, research done by Northrup (2002) reveals that the most

important factor for students is receiving feedback and a prompt response from tutors

rather than interacting with peers.

Tutors’ Role

The tutor is responsible for interacting with the distance learning student in terms

of content and the learning process (Padula Perkins, 2007). Based on research and

experience, several authors describe the tasks involved in the tutor’s role.

Llorente (2006) proposes a complete categorization of the virtual tutor concept.

She identifies 5 functions necessary to interact in a virtual environment:

• Technical: knowing the platform and technological resources (the tutor does

not need to be an expert but he/she should possess guidance skills.)

16

• Academic: mastering the content, performing diagnostics and students’

evaluations, summarizing forum discussion posts.

• Organizational: establishing and respecting the structure, explaining operating

rules, keeping contact with expert teachers and with the institution.

• Guiding: guiding and advising students in the learning process, giving private

and public feedback.

• Social: encouraging participation; minimizing isolation and lack of motivation

scenarios.

Garcia Aretio (2001) defines 3 functions, all of which fit into the categories

described by Llorente: guiding, academic, and institutional functions.

Collison et. al (2000) states that facilitators should perform three key functions.

The first one is being a "guide on the side" facilitator as opposed to playing a traditional

lecturing role "on stage". The “guide on the side” facilitator will read all posts and will

only participate if necessary when guidance and support are needed to move forward. The

tutor should also play the role of instructor, especially by providing feedback. Finally, the

tutor is a group leader who should get to know and support students in the community

building process being himself an active participant in such group.

Lugo & Schulman (1999) summarize the tutor’s role in 4 functions: participating,

leading, coordinating, and guiding students’ individual or collective learning processes.

Lugo & Schulman state that the tutor focuses on learning rather than teaching; he or she

is not an expert transmitter of content but rather a facilitator of autonomous learning.

Padula Perkins (2007) adds that such an autonomous learning process can be achieved

17

via constructive criticism and guidance, which motivates participants to move forward in

the process of building knowledge.

18

Chapter III

Distance Education Model

A Systems Model for Distance Education

I first came into contact with the field of distance education back in 1999 during a

work experience7. Later on, when I explored authors in the field, I chose the Distance

Education Systems Model created by Moore & Kearsley (1996) as the basis for the

analysis and design of an e-learning course. One of the reasons that led me to select this

model was that it provided the theoretical grounds to develop my own design method.

The Systems Model consists of a flow process that shows the main components

that every distance program should possess. Such components are interdependent, thus

changes in one part of the system will have an effect on the others (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Systems Model for Distance Education (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). This

graphic represents interconnected components of Distance Education.

7 I had my first distance education experience at BankBoston in 1999. My responsibility was to

implement e-learning initiatives in order to provide distributed training for more than 3000 geographically

dispersed employees in a short period of time.

19

The components of the Systems Model can be summarized as follows:

• Sources: The sources in a distance learning environment include the

organizational culture, the student’s needs, as well as the professionals in

charge of providing the content material. These professionals are content

experts who may either belong to the organization or to an outsourced party.

They are field specialists who act as the source of the knowledge to be taught.

When it comes to defining the content, it is important to take into account

factors such as the organization’s framework, mission, philosophy, and

history. In addition, given the costly nature of distance courses due to the

technology involved, students’ real needs should be analyzed in order to

justify course development.

• Design: Course design implies organizing the contents in a simple structure to

facilitate students' learning processes. At this stage, designers decide on the

objectives, activities, material layout and adequate communication tools. The

instructional designer, the specialist responsible for this task, coordinates

his/her work with experts in charge of the course content and graphic and web

designers contribute with their knowledge to make technological decisions.

The evaluation of student performance and the effectiveness of the course

design are also planned at this stage.

• Delivery: Material delivery can be carried out through diverse technological

means - e.g. Internet, CDs, videos, audio and print material – and they should

be selected in accordance with the circumstances. Considering that students

20

are located in distant sites, decisions must be made in order to select the most

effective media for each part of the instruction.

• Interaction: Throughout the course, students need to interact with tutors,

instructors, organizational staff, and other students. Therefore, communication

tools that allow participants to interact should be considered when selecting

the type of technology to be used.

• Learning environment: When designing a course, factors such as the

environment in which participants will take the course (home, workplace or

another place) should also be taken into account in order to anticipate possible

environmental learning obstacles. The design may also present the study

material in a sequence of short learning sections (self-contained segments) in

order to help students be more focused and avoid possible distractions when

facing tight learning schedules.

Moore & Kearsley (2005) adjusted their model and included a “management

function”.

• Management: This is the coordinating function responsible for organizing and

monitoring all the components of a distance education system. Coordinators

are responsible for ensuring technological, monetary and human resources.

They are also in charge of performing an ongoing monitoring of the program

and managing the cultural change that distance education demands.

21

Start-up Distance Education Model

I have been working in the field of distance education for the last eight years. The

experience I have gained from participating in e-learning projects and from the study of

field specialists led me to build a model that could be used to put an effective distance

education strategy into gear. The model is based on the components of Moore &

Kearsley’s Systems Model (1996, 2005) and is complemented by aspects proposed by

other authors. The final product is an extended model that shows an organized sequence

within a process.

When an organization is new to distance education, the project involves two

levels of design: the first corresponds to the analysis and definition of the organization’s

strategy towards distance education, and the second is the design of programs and courses

involved in that strategy.

The Start-up Model I propose can be summarized as shown by the following chart:

Figure 2. Start-up Distance Education Model. This figure shows the stages and tasks

involved in a Start-up Project of Distance Education.

22

From my own experience8 (Segura & Vaccario, 2004a), I believe that the first

crucial step for any e-learning strategy is to define the building blocks of the project,

namely the context, needs, and barriers. The second stage is to define the methodology,

the type of courses, and the technology to be used within such context. Many e-learning

strategies are frequently based on the selection and installation of an IT tool that is never

used because the underlying foundation has not been correctly identified. Many times,

failure to identify the right approach before the implementation of an e-learning project

leads to disappointment and disbelief in distance education as a learning methodology.

Once context and key aspects of the framework have been defined, the institution

can start designing the course and processing the content. However, the development of a

distance course is not just an adaptation of the content; the instructional design of

distance learning courses demands a different philosophy that implies defining course

structure, developing content materials, and introducing resources to enable

communication.

In the last stage, in order to set up the scenario of a virtual community of learners,

tutors should be prepared to act as guiding facilitators in a distance education

environment rather than just mere instructors. Finally, an informative campaign should be

developed in order to guide students into the e-learning culture.

The following sections describe each of these stages in detail.

8 I participated in other e-learning experiences which involved developing a first distance

education project. In those projects, I used the model proposed which it turned out to be an effective tool to

implement a strategy that continues to be used today.

23

Stage 1: Context Analysis

Background. There are several historical factors associated with the history and

background of an organization that can be used as a springboard to decide upon the

adoption of a certain e-learning methodology.

In their Systems Model, Moore & Kearsley (1996) emphasize that the

responsibility of any organization is to define the content to be taught in light of the

institutional mission and philosophy; in other words, program goals and concepts taught

by the experts should be consistent with the history of the institution involved.

Consequently, before the implementation of any distance learning program, the

organization should identify and assess factors such as institutional mission, potential of

the program to accomplish such mission, organizational culture to be able to adapt the

course contents, and experts' and teachers' philosophy in order to identify their

preferences.

Distance education programs may appear in organizations after a gradual process

in which a series of preliminary experimentation events finally lead to the adoption of an

organized, explicit strategy (Schreiber & Berge, 1998). At an early stage, different sectors

in the organization develop solutions pioneered by innovative instructors and staff from

IT areas. Their followers adopt and combine different technological options to develop

new programs. As the e-learning inventory grows, the organization accumulates an array

of available solutions and interdisciplinary experience which is collaborative in some

24

cases. Normally, at this stage the institution feels the need to establish strategic standards

and institutionalize the e-learning methodology in an organized plan9.

By exploring these preliminary events and stages that precede the

institutionalization of the new methodology, the organization learns from past

experiences and identifies positive and negative results as well as the strengths and

weaknesses involved. Simultaneously, people in the organization feel more committed to

the process because their experiences are taken into account, hence their resistance to the

change in learning methodology weakens. As an example of preliminary events taking

place prior to program institutionalization, I may mention the use of didactic videos, the

creation of self-study manuals, the development of CBT’s (computer based training,

usually in CD format), and reliance on more advanced tools, such as web pages used to

publish material for face-to-face courses, etc.

Needs. The implementation of an e-learning plan requires a clear-cut definition of the

organization's requirements in order to take the project in the right direction. More than

once, organizations embark on e-learning initiatives following a fad, just “to imitate what

everyone else is doing” or simply to take the leading role in the field rather than on

students/employees’10 “real” needs or well-founded reasons. As a result, organizations

tend to incorporate technology at random (Litwin, 1995).

9 This distance learning evolution curve resembles the four-stage technological innovation curve

proposed by Katz (1999): experimentation, incubation, commercialization and commoditization.

10 Distance education can be implemented for different types of target audiences; either employees

in a company or students in an educational organization.

25

E-learning might be a solution in some cases, and as Moore & Kearsley (1996)

state, it is important to determine the real needs that call for project implementation

considering its costly development. The following factors are traditionally responsible for

creating the need for e-learning implementation:

• Location: Geographical dispersion of students who need to access this type of

education. Distance learning reaches everyone for which commuting is not

necessary.

• Costs: This is related to the previous geographical factor. Nowadays,

organizations cannot afford teachers’ and employees' transportation costs

anymore. Consequently, cost reduction is an essential reason for e-learning

implementation.

• Training time: E-learning minimizes the amount of time employees need to

leave their positions unattended and at the same time cuts productivity losses

coming from employees’ transportation costs, employees’ absence from the

workplace and catching up on tasks.

• Ongoing training: The demand for ongoing training and “just in time”

practices is on the rise as a result of the new labor market conditions due to

either the drastic changes in task complexity or the high employee turn-over

demanding re-training of new recruits.

• Digital generation: The mean age of employees in organizations is coming

closer to that of younger people who were born and raised in the age of

26

Internet and belong to the so-called digital generation. These people are likely

to choose an e-learning type training.

Barriers. A common behavioral pattern that appears among the people involved in the

implementation of an e-learning program is resistance to the new methodology. Such

resistance or barriers seem to be related to either technological requirements or social

aspects in the organization. On the basis of what has been stated by several authors

(Garcia Aretio, 2001; Soomyung & Berge, 2002; Uñantes, Reynoso & Brescia, 2004),

barriers can be classified as follows:

• Technological: Participants’ and teachers’ lack of resources or limited

knowledge about information technology; unavailability or low quality

technical support offered to users.

• Cultural (personal and organizational factors): Instructors used to residential

teaching who express unwillingness to adapt themselves to virtual

methodologies; institutions that are not used to self-learning practices

(employees accustomed to live classrooms taught by an instructor); the feeling

of isolation that learners may have when there is no direct dialog with tutors

and/or mates.

• Didactic: Lack of a specific didactic design in distance methodology;

technological support in which navigation tools make learning difficult;

instructors with scarce distance learning experience; lack of content experts

when required.

27

• Administrative: Inadequate organization structure to carry out the tasks

incorporated by the e-learning system (for example, registration and online

payments, access to resources such as libraries or contact with the institution).

In practice, a closer look into such hindering factors reveals the following

considerations:

• Not all users possess the same knowledge about information technology or the

same possibilities to have access to last generation technology. Neither do

they possess similar learning autonomy. As a consequence, training of

instructors/tutors in this methodology is fundamental because it will allow

them to get adapted to the students’ different technological levels and learning

styles (Marturet, 1999; Garcia Aretio, 2001).

• Interaction and dialog among the participants in an e-learning program

prevents feelings of isolation and eventual dropouts. Even though e-mail is an

effective communication means it may sometimes produce feelings of “being

on their own” among students. We should admit that it is quite different from

exchanging opinions in a discussion forum and participating in a virtual

environment with a group of colleagues.

• A support team that may offer support and help users (Lugo & Schulman,

2004) is another important consideration. Training the staff who will perform

administrative tasks (students’ registration and monitoring; preparation and

analysis of statistical information; etc.) is of critical importance.

28

• Institutional communication plays a major role for which planning ahead will

help overcome resistance. Before launching an e-learning program, it is

advisable to give students some course orientation by sending a series of

informative mails delivered at regular intervals throughout a period of time,

for example, a welcome message, a description of distance learning’s main

features, a guide to technological resources, etc. Additionally, should the

program be implemented in the same company or organization, an informative

campaign could be launched among employees in order to let them know

about similar past experiences based on information technology. This would

prepare students to better face the new e-learning challenge and study

methods and would eventually help overcome cultural barriers. The tasks

involved in institutional communication as well as in the hiring process of the

support team should be carried out by the institution’s management (Moore &

Kearsley, 2005).

To sum up, the identification of factors of resistance to the new methodology

allows organizations to be better prepared and define possible solutions. In addition,

the fact of considering previous experiences in education technology is useful to

overcome barriers and contributes to meeting the needs that call for the

implementation of a distance education program.

Stage 2: Distance Education Framework

Once the organizational context has been analyzed, the development of a

distance/e-learning project requires the consideration of fundamental factors such as the

29

selection of the right type of distance courses, the methodology, and the technology

delivery mechanism. Altogether, these three factors will contribute to quality programs;

however, the absence of any one of them may lead to project failure.

Course Type. In order to better determine the type of courses included in a distance

program, organizations should carefully evaluate their specific needs. A mistake that an

organization might make when implementing a distance program would be to transform

"all" existing courses into e-learning versions without evaluating the requirements.

Extremes are not recommended; on the contrary, a good strategy would combine both

methodologies and include residential, distance and blended learning11 courses.

Distance learning does not rule out traditional courses. Certain topics necessarily

require a residential type of course. Blended learning courses that combine distance and

residential learning are a very positive alternative in cases in which the distance model is

being launched for the first time because they allow students to gradually adapt to the

new learning environment. Some institutions have adopted the term “hybrid programs”12

to refer to those courses in which some students attend “live” classes while others take

the "virtual” version of the same course. In this case, the audience is referred to as

“blended”.

The design of distance programs may include a broad range of content material;

however, there are some limitations to such content variety. Courses seeking cognitive

11 As noted in Glossary: Blended learning is a common term used in e-learning and expresses

mixed learning, i.e. in the same course there are sections learned at a distance while others are face-to-face.

12 Harvard Distance Education Program has “hybrid courses” and during my Internship I had the

opportunity to analyze communication within some courses of this type.

30

objectives, i.e. oriented to the acquisition of specific knowledge, comprehension, and

reflection are appropriate for distance education practices. On the contrary, programs

emphasizing attitudinal behavior assessment or requiring a hands-on application of the

knowledge acquired using equipment or working on patients are less feasible for

implementation using a distance learning approach.

The definition of the contents to be taught in a distance program is closely related

to scalability, i.e. the scale economy that may result from the implementation of an e-

learning program in terms of the number of registered participants in its online format

versus the number of students in the residential-traditional version. If design and delivery

costs of the distance course were greater than the number of students that will be able to

participate it would probably not be advisable.

Methodology. Each organization will apply its own methodology for e-learning courses

and its definition will depend on the institutional culture. For example: If the employees

show certain study autonomy, it will be easier to launch self-study online courses that do

not require the participation of a tutor/instructor. Once again, the importance of clearly

defining the context beforehand, i.e. the organization’s history, resistance factors, and

needs in order to define a suitable methodology becomes evident.

From the point of view of learning autonomy and independent study work,

courses can be self-directed (self-study) or tutor assisted. As a rule, self-study programs

are entirely completed individually and the student interacts solely with the content

material. On the other hand, tutor assisted programs are managed by a facilitator who

guides the learning process and encourages collaboration among participants. If the tutor-

assisted methodology was chosen, course directives should encourage dialog among

31

participants for whom discussion forums and other communication resources will be

fundamental tools in the course design. In these cases, the role of tutors will be of critical

importance to encourage participation and interaction among students.

When designing the methodology to be used, the project team in charge of

developing the distance education program should be taken into consideration. According

to Moore & Kearsley (1996), the team should be composed of interdisciplinary

professionals, i.e. content experts, instructional designers, and web/graphic designers.

Content experts are professionals who excel in the subject matter to be taught.

Their collaboration is critical in creating content material, getting information,

incorporating exercises and validating the material already processed. Experts can be part

of the organization or outsourced personnel; in either case, their condition is an important

factor to consider in designing the strategy since outsourced parties may imply applying

more controls to verify whether the content is consistent with the institutional philosophy.

As a rule, the content expert teacher is not responsible for producing the definitive

material since its processing has to be made through technological means (Moore &

Kearsley, 1996). Part of the methodology will be based on the definition of the roles

involved and on the recruiting of web or multimedia programmers qualified to do the job.

At this stage, the type of media to be used is also outlined. Although the design

can be modified at a later time, designers should first define whether the material would

be text-based, web-based, or multimedia oriented, including audio and video capabilities.

Such decisions will depend on the institution’s and students’ technological possibilities.

This implies, for example, that audio material should not be developed if participants do

not have PC audio capabilities. We should note that the more complex the technological

32

media involved in the material development, the larger the size of files to be managed.

Students with low bandwith connections may have difficulties accessing these large files

and their connection times may be considerably longer. At the same time, higher

investments in time and qualified project developers may become necessary.

Finally, another factor to explore when defining course methodology is whether

communication among participants will be synchronic or asynchronic. This implies

deciding on either forum discussions and mail messaging tools, or scheduled online chat

sessions in which students and tutors may meet simultaneously. In synchronic

communication, other technological options such as teleconference or videoconference

can also be incorporated. These methodological decisions will have an impact on the

lesson design.

Delivery Technology. Given the several terms that are used to define technology that

delivers distance education courses: LMS (Learning Management System), virtual

campus, e-learning platforms, virtual classroom, etc., for the sake of consistency in this

study, I am going to refer to them simply as “platforms”.

The selection of the platform in which the e-learning courses will reside is not a

minor issue. However, we should take into account that most platforms rely on similar

resources, namely content management, use of synchronic and asynchronic

communication means, and student management (registration and monitoring). These

tools share similar features and their differences lie in the way the information is

displayed, their flexibility to be modified, and the production of content.

33

Although required functionality is closely linked to institutional needs and target

users, platforms should meet the following conditions13:

• Content development: Simplicity to upload the course content and to import

courses previously developed.

• Multimedia support: Possibility to upload files in different formats, for

example, animations, videos, audio, and closed packages of other applications.

• Communication media: Synchronic and asynchronic group communication

resources.

• Evaluation and questionnaires: Possibility to generate survey-type

questionnaires and evaluations of different types (multiple choice and others).

• Users: Prompt student registration and easy management of students, personal

data and passwords. Learning process follow-up and report creation

capabilities.

In addition, when selecting an e-learning platform an economic assessment should

be conducted in order to consider the costs related to the use/purchase of the platform.

Finally, it is important to analyze compatibility with the organization’s systems

and equipment, as well as available technical system support to users and knowledge in

terms of maintenance and updating of the new system.

13 In 2003 I had to evaluate e-learning platforms for BankBoston (company where I used to work).

On that opportunity the training team prepared a comparative matrix of platforms considering the items

described. Since then, I’ve been using and updating this matrix.

34

Stage 3: Distance Course Design

The basic steps to design a distance course do not differ from those followed to

design any other ordinary course. However, given the distance learning nature of the

program, other resources should be taken into consideration in order to meet

communication needs. The design of a distance learning program involves the following

tasks:

• Content search: In the case of pre-existing residential programs that are

converted into a distance learning format, the course content legacy should be

analyzed and supplementary content material should be gathered. If a new

distance learning course is designed from scratch, the learning needs and

content to be taught must be previously assessed. All the available material in

all possible formats should be analyzed in order to thoroughly identify the

content to be included and detect what is missing.

• Preliminary design: It implies laying the course structure on the basis of the

information gathered. This preliminary phase involves assembling the

learning modules (in lessons or units), defining goals and support media for

the material, exercises and evaluation. The number of modules, duration,

frequency, and dedication times for each class are also defined at this stage.

Before the course structure is defined, we should consider the restrictions

imposed by the number of participants involved. A typical class population

will depend on the number of students that tutors can efficiently assist and

handle. As a rule, the maximum number of vacancies established in practice is

35

between 20-25 participants. We should note that in very small groups,

conditions will not encourage interaction.

• Detailed design and content processing: The detailed design stage seeks to go

deeper into the content material. At this stage, material, activities, interaction

instances, communication tools and media to be used in each lesson are

created. Designers have to decide whether the course content will be text-

based or based on audio/video. Multimedia products and respective

documents are also developed at this time. Supplementary content material,

such as links to Internet sites, is developed and/or selected.

The type of activities or exercises for each lesson/unit is also defined. These

activities can be communicative oriented such as virtual discussions, personal

reflections, and posting of opinions or home assignments to be submitted, for

example case analysis, problem solving, reports, conclusions and summaries.

When I design distance learning activities, I concur with Marta Mena’s (1987)

endeavor to make students participate individually and collectively with the

purpose of building knowledge through open proposals that promote

reflection and participation.

Finally, the design of the course also involves the definition of ongoing

monitoring actions and tutors' feedback as well as the creation of quizzes,

lesson evaluations, assessments, etc.

• Publish contents: Once processed, the material is uploaded into the platform.

Uploading content to the platform or website in a distance education program

is a milestone in the course design process because it provides a new

36

perspective of how the information will be presented. This new perspective

translates into the need to reorganize the course contents in order to convert

sequential material (paper) into a virtual format. At this time, other difficulties

that may be encountered are resolved.

• Work with content experts: From the very beginning and throughout the entire

design process, the instructional designer and the teacher or content expert

work together and hold a series of successive meetings. The expert

professional provides the content and fills in the gaps detected by the

designer, such as additional examples and case studies. The expert also

provides feedback and approves the original and detailed design of the course.

• Pilot test: I propose to carry out a pilot test of the course in order to detect

critical changes before its launching.

Based on my own experience in lesson design and after completion of several

course iterations, I created a “class model” 14 that exemplifies the distance components of

14 During my internship at Harvard Extension School (2002), I analyzed several courses belonging

to the distance learning program in order to better understand the course organization and communication

tools, to detect strengths and weaknesses, and to make recommendations for improvement whenever

necessary. For each of the courses I analyzed, my intention was to represent its organization graphically.

After several attempts, I found out that the diagrams of the different courses I had analyzed revealed similar

characteristics: all of them contained one reading/content portion, one section that involved group work,

and a third one that required interactive communication with tutors.

Later on, I decided to create a more comprehensive diagram that could be applied to other courses

offered by other institutions. With this objective in mind, I based myself on the Transactional Distance

Theory (Moore, 1996), and I tried to incorporate the three variables proposed by Moore’s theory into my

diagram: structure, dialog and learning autonomy. When I superimposed Moore’s variables on the sections

of my diagram, I realized that the content section and the individual exercises portion are aspects that the

37

a class, i.e. reading activities and exercises, and focuses on the interaction between

participants and tutors. The model I created classifies lesson components into the three

variables of the Transactional Distance Theory: structure, dialog, and learning

autonomy (Moore &Kearsley, 1996). As shown by the chart in Figure 3, content

section and the individual exercises portion are aspects that the student handles with

autonomy. At the same time, forum discussions and group activities, as well as inquiries

and feedback from tutors, correspond to instances in which dialog takes place. Finally, it

is the entire set that gives shape to the whole course structure.

Figure 3. Distance Class Model. This diagram represents components of a

distance lesson categorized in 3 variables: structure, dialogue, and autonomy.

student handles with autonomy. At the same time, forum discussions and group activities, as well as

inquiries and feedback from tutors correspond to instances in which dialog takes place. Finally, all

components constitute the entire course structure. The diagram I finally obtained is the one shown in Figure

3.

38

The new diagram, which I decided to call “class model”, is not meant to reflect

Moore’s theory, but rather derives from it in search of a categorization. It constitutes a

flexible model that I apply systematically to the distance courses I design, and can be

adapted to the needs of each course. I have used this model for the methodological

design of AEDIN’s postgraduate program (this will be further explained later on in the

program description).

Stage 4: E-learning Culture

Student Orientation. The bibliography consulted highlights the importance of creating an

e-learning culture within the organization in order to accompany the launching of the new

learning methodology. Authors recommend creating a series of guidelines, instructions,

and directives so that students become gradually familiar with distance learning practices,

the use of the platform (White, 2000; Stanton, 2001; Davies, Ramsay, Lindfield &

Couperthwaite, 2005), as well as the purpose and principles of online communication

(Horton, 2000; Ke, 2004; Haavind, 2005; Chang, 2002; Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). In

practice, these guidelines and instructions take shape in an organized set of documents,

files, and messages sent to students or posted on the e-learning platform so that students

may gradually understand online learning principles.

Tutors Training. At the same time, the academic team involved in the project should be

trained to perform a new role. As a rule, teachers are qualified in their teaching roles and

have developed the necessary oral communication skills to face an audience of learners.

39

However, distance learning calls for a shift in teaching methodology criteria in which the

facilitator’s mentoring role in the learning process should be emphasized (Lugo &

Schulman, 1999, Collison et. al, 2000; Garcia Aretio, 2001; Llorente, 2006). The

Concord Consortium15, an institution specialized in educational research, emphasizes the

need for distance leaning courses to be managed by an “expert facilitator”: “Expert

facilitation: online courses are led by a qualified person specifically trained in online

facilitation” 16.

To train facilitators in their roles I suggest designing an array of activities using

the same technological tools and methodology applied in the courses geared to students.

In this way, teachers will not only learn about and reflect upon their online tutoring roles,

but will also be personally involved in the entire online tutoring experience and its

implications. Tutors will get a hands-on experience in the use of technology. Such

experience will allow them to detect difficulties and weaknesses in the methodology,

allowing them to be able to help students more effectively. Additionally, they will

develop awareness of the feelings that the distance factor may cause in the educational

environment from a social perspective; experience they will be able to capitalize on and

assimilate into their own student-tutoring roles.

15 The Concord Consortium is a nonprofit educational research and development organization that

creates interactive materials that exploit the power of information technologies. For more information see:

http://www.concord.org

16 The Concord Consortium establishes an E-learning model to develop quality online courses.

One of its principles is ‘expert facilitation’. More information on the model is available through:

http://www.concord.org/courses/cc_e-learning_model.html

40

Community Set-up. In view of the importance of collaborative learning, we should take

into account that learners' sense of belonging to a student community is the first step to

successfully completing a collaborative learning process (Wegerif, 2001). It is worth

mentioning that building up a community is a gradual process and only after a long

period of active participation (Brown, 2001) will students be able to develop the sense of

belonging to the community17. Consequently, community-building activities should be

designed to accompany the process. Some actions recommended by Brown (2001),

Woods, (2003) and others are:

• Design guidelines: Students need to feel comfortable with technology for

which designing guidelines and directives as described in the paragraphs

above is a possible solution.

• Generate interaction beyond program: Interaction beyond program objectives

creates ties among students which help them discover that they have things in

common to share. Personal introductions at the beginning of the course, as

well as online spaces such as ‘study rooms’ or ‘forum cafés’ in which students

may hold private conversations with others, are examples of social interaction

instances that may encourage community building.

17In her studies, Brown (2001) states that students felt they had developed a sense of belonging to

the community after having participated in discussion forums of general interest. Brown establishes three

community levels that characterize its evolution: In early stages, instructors participate more frequently

until students feel comfortable with technology and discover things in common to share. Next, students

experience a sense of belonging to the community, and finally the highest level is achieved which is

characterized by the camaraderie acquired after intensive group interaction.

41

• Create online opportunities to bring people together such as chat rooms in

which students can simultaneously be online. Since one of the features

promoting distance learning is student’s time self-management, it may be

difficult to fix the same schedule for all participants; consequently, the

subsequent posting of chat scripts held by students is more than welcome to

benefit those who are not able to participate online18.

• Use audio or videos: Instructors can rely on audio or video resources to

communicate several concepts to students as a supplement to other text

materials Video/audio capabilities allow the transmission of oral/visual

messages that are not available in text-based CMC communication.

• Reflect on community: Planning ahead opportunities in which students can

reflect upon the concept of learning community and its benefits may help

students’ feel the need to build up such community. Likewise, students’

reflections on their own contributions to the community, as well as those of

other learners’, strengthens the need of community.

18 Weekly chat sessions are very common in Fundación BankBoston’s courses, an institution in

which I serve as a consultant. In these courses, scheduling chat activities in which all participants could be

simultaneously online is a complex task and consequently all chat conversations are posted immediately

after they are held to make them available to those missing the session. Students who do not participate in

those chats can read the script sessions at a later time, and those who do participate consider chat rooms

useful to review concepts discussed.

42

Chapter IV

Case History

This chapter explains the history of AEDIN´s case. It describes the underlying

process, the tasks involved, and the decisions made in order to convert AEDIN’s

traditional courses on Assistive Technology into an e-learning distance program. I

developed and implemented this work project using the Start-up Model of distance

education explained in Chapter III.

AEDIN's Institutional Context

The first step in the project was to understand AEDIN’s context and become

familiar with its institutional philosophy and expectations. For this purpose, I organized

meetings with AEDIN’s manager and with the postgraduate course coordinators.

Based on the information I gathered from these meeting, I will briefly describe

AEDIN’s institutional background, the needs that led this institution to implement the

distance postgraduate course, as well as the barriers that had to be previously identified

and cleared in order to launch the program.

A.E.D.I.N. is a non-profit association devoted to educating and rehabilitating

infants and young children with neurological challenges. AEDIN was created in 1965 to

provide support to the Neurological wing of Hospital de Niños Ricardo Gutiérrez

(Ricardo Gutierrez Children’s Hospital) in the city of Buenos Aires. In 1983 it opened its

43

doors to the community as an independent entity. AEDIN’s mission can be summarized

and quoted as follows: “We devote ourselves to helping neurologically impaired infants

and young children in an attempt to contribute to their happiness.” AEDIN’s vision is

“to promote the development of a larger number of infants and young children suffering

brain paralysis and other developmental disorders by helping them achieve their

maximum physical potential and overcome their limitations.”

In Argentina, AEDIN is engaged in technological equipment for communication,

learning, and mobility purposes. The institution also commits itself to developing

strategies to help impaired children and youngsters achieve realistic goals.

Supported by an interdisciplinary team, AEDIN is an expert leader in treating

people with disabilities. The entity has been making extensive use of assistive technology

over the years, thus becoming a source of knowledge for professionals in this field. In

2005, AEDIN decided to extend this knowledge into the community by implementing a

Postgraduate Residential Course on Assistive Technology.

Concerning the implications of assistive technology, AEDIN's coordinators

express the following:

The advances made in technological developments and in communication

sciences demand an up-to-date, front-line education geared toward health

and education professionals who commit themselves to people with

disabilities. However, university preparation received by Argentinean and

Latin-American therapists is not sound enough to meet the needs of those

who suffer communication disorders caused by motor, sensory,

intellectual or language impairments and who could eventually benefit

from low and high technology augmentative and alternative resources.

44

Rehabilitation practices are relatively new in the world, but they have

experienced rapid growth. These practices were first developed in

Argentina thanks to individual initiatives that are now being successfully

and enthusiastically accomplished. However, such personal initiatives are

not always grounded on solid knowledge, and specialists do not even have

the possibility of having quick access to the experiences of local or foreign

professionals so as to keep up with technological times.

New technologies have had an impact on the areas of positioning, mobility

and adaptation to everyday life. In last decades, the incorporation of new

materials along with the application of biomechanical principles resulted

in postural systems that functionally benefit the people with motor

disorders. Besides, the versatility of motorized systems for mobility

(wheelchairs with multiple controls, scooters, etc.) has greatly improved

the life quality of people with disabilities. Specific knowledge is also

required in this area of applied technology in order to analyze the

patients’ needs, as well as to identify the options of available resources

leading to improved functionality.

Technology provides powerful tools that help patients with motor

disorders make autonomy achievements. For several years, AEDIN has

been a local leader in technological equipment, and has committed itself

to developing possible approaches to the treatment of patients within a

cooperative model along with the family and the professionals that

compose the care support team.

Concerning AEDIN’s culture, its atmosphere is characterized by a professional

joyful attitude, friendly manners, and a colorful institutional image. AEDIN’s building

facilities, their walls and furniture, are full of color. This is also perceived in AEDIN’s

institutional logo, as well as in its webpage design19. In addition, therapists wear colorful

19 AEDIN´s webpage is online, for further information access: www.aedin.org.

45

uniforms to complete the setting. The language is very colloquial and friendly, and

people continuously express a lot of affection towards young patients, always wearing a

permanent smile while serving others.

Needs for a Distance Course. The residential postgraduate program gave satisfactory

results; however, the need to extend the postgraduate course to participants living far

from Buenos Aires demanded a change in the program modality. Professionals from all

over the country and neighboring countries participated in short courses that AEDIN had

organized while visiting different cities. On these occasions, or by word of mouth, these

professionals got to know about the postgraduate program that AEDIN had successfully

completed. When they learned about the course syllabus, they showed interest in

participating in this postgraduate course, but they also mentioned the impossibility of

moving from their current residences and abandoning their personal/professional lives for

a year. Hence, AEDIN's intention was to make this program extensive to participants

residing far from Buenos Aires. Nonetheless, several changes had to be made to the

program before it could be successfully launched.

Barriers for implementation. The different professionals involved in the project showed

different reactions to the proposed change in methodology. The academic team had great

expectations concerning the initiative; however, course coordinators emphasized the

positive factors of the residential postgraduate course, such as the emotional and

personalized contact with participants and the possibility of monitoring the learning

process, values they wanted to preserve in the new distance education model. Finally,

even though teachers had some fears (use of technology, response speed, establishing

bonds), only one of them proved to be reluctant to the new teaching model.

46

A demo lesson available on the Internet was designed to allow potential students

to have a hands-on experience and overcome the possible resistance to the new

methodology. Such resistance could be present not only in potential students, but also in

some teachers who did not totally rely on the benefits of distance learning. The demo was

designed with special emphasis on the personal relationships the teachers’ offered to

students in spite of the distance. For this purpose, photos of the academic team and

previous year alumni were posted, and an introductory lesson with simple colloquial

language was presented.

Another topic of concern among teachers was “copyright” since the digitalized

material that had to be uploaded to the web could be easily copied and distributed. These

doubts were finally cleared up as the course progressed and teachers finally understood

that the quality of the program was based not only on the text material but also on their

key role as facilitators and experts.

Another important barrier to sort out was the technological restrictions of the

people participating in the program. In general, broadband connections are not very

common in small cities in Argentina, thus connection speeds are slow when downloading

files. Once the program started, we learned that in addition to these factors, several

students did not have a computer and did not even check their e-mail on a regular basis.

During the focus group20, I found that the postgraduate program brought about a

technological evolution among students who decided either to upgrade their Internet

connections or buy a new computer. This barrier was a key aspect in defining the type of

20 The focus group was conducted at the end of the course and will be explained in detail in further

chapters.

47

materials delivered to students. In order to avoid a technology gap among students of

different levels or technical resources, non-heavy and easy access materials were

preferred.

Educational Technology Predecessors. AEDIN is a technology-oriented institution and

its professionals are familiar with the technical equipment and computers used for the

treatment of patients. Concerning technology applied to educational purposes, in the past

AEDIN's professionals relied on some tools that could be considered the predecessors of

AEDIN’s distance education program. These tools included videos of patients to train

interns and the development of CD-based case studies (containing both photos and

videos), which were used to make presentations.

During the postgraduate program taught in 2005, course coordinators asked a

group of collaborators to tape classes in order to start gathering content material that

could be used in the future postgraduate course digitalization. The taped material was

used as the basis of content in the distance education version.

AEDIN’s Distance Education Framework

Courses Type. AEDIN offers a variety of courses in therapeutic treatment. Apart from the

postgraduate in Assistive Technology (which is the longest course), AEDIN offers

shorter courses in communication or mobility. In addition, AEDIN organizes courses for

internship applicants and newcomers to the institution. However, AEDIN’s goal was to

include only the postgraduate course in its Distance Program in order to respond to a real

need: increase the audience of the course by attracting people living far away from

Buenos Aires. With this purpose in mind, the final decision was that AEDIN would offer

48

two kinds of courses: short residential-type courses that would keep its original format,

and a blended course (a combination of face-to-face and online classes) such as the one

designed for the postgraduate program.

At this stage there was a key question regarding which topics could be taught at a

distance with successful results. Contents were pre-defined on the basis of the residential

version of the program taught the previous year. Almost every topic could be learnt

online, but as the course relied on the analysis of patients, the course transformation to

distance format required analyzing this aspect. Course coordinators decided to develop a

mixed program with sections that could be learned at a distance and other portions that

had to be taught face-to-face. The analysis of patients was made through cases and videos

in the distance portion, and coordinators incorporated a face-to-face week exclusively

devoted to working with patients´ real cases.

In this stage, the program's possible name was also an important discussion topic,

and several descriptive terms such as “virtual”, “at a distance”, “semi-residential”,

“combined”, and "blended” were proposed. Finally, the term “distance” was chosen

because it turned out to be a more academic term than the word “virtual”. Although the

program’s name did not reflect the blended nature of the postgraduate course, its

promotion and description put special emphasis on the practical component and patients

case studies that were taught distance and face-to-face.

AEDIN’s Course Methodology. AEDIN’s residential program was taught by a group of

teachers who were individually responsible for one or more classes. Originally, the

distance learning version was going to keep a similar structure in which each teacher was

not only the course instructor, but also the subject matter expert in charge of developing

49

the content. However, such course structure would have posed some problems to

participants in terms of getting adapted to the pace and different teaching styles of the

professors in charge. Likewise, teachers might have found it difficult to monitor and

evaluate students, and although they might have been able to identify the progress in their

own classes, they would have missed the results obtained by other teachers. In an attempt

to anticipate a solution to these problems, the distance postgraduate program incorporated

the figure of a tutor who was responsible for providing ongoing guidance throughout the

course.

The academic team of the postgraduate course was finally composed of a group of

professors in charge of teaching the content and a group of tutors who performed a

monitoring function. The tutoring function was in the hands of a team of three

professionals who shared tasks and were responsible for assisting a large number of

students. Although students were able to interact with any of the tutors participating in

the program, a personal tutor was assigned to each student. This personal tutor focused on

the student’s overall progress and closely monitored him/her throughout the program.

One methodological aspect that was taken into account was the maximum possible

number of participants who could sign up for the postgraduate course. Considering the

tasks to be performed by tutors, and in order to maximize the assistance and guidance

offered, the total number of students was fixed at 60, i.e. 20 per tutor.

Teachers kept their roles of content experts for their own classes, and in this role

they provided content material to be developed. In addition, they were responsible for

assessing and providing feedback on assignments and responding to questions in the

forum that required their expertise.

50

In short, the academic team was composed of content expert-teachers and tutors

who relied on the necessary resources to meet communication needs. The academic team

agreed to the recommendation for asynchronic communication, and forum discussions

were used as the principal communication tool.

As I have already mentioned, the material selected for content delivery was user-

friendly. Most of the uploaded contents were text-based documents and quick access web

pages with few images or photos. Multimedia tools such as videos were used only to

present cases.

Delivery Technology. Another key aspect to be addressed at this stage was the selection

of a technological platform that could suit AEDIN's needs. The e-learning platforms

currently available in the local market have similar resources. Vendors offer the

following alternatives to users: purchase, hosting, or development.

• Purchase: The system is purchased and used in the institution. The buyer must

provide the necessary equipment as well as its own technological support.

This is the most expensive option.

• Hosting: The system is hosted in a service provider and the user pays a fee for

the service. Normally, such fee includes third party technological support.

This is a more economical option and may be hired for a fixed term.

• Development: The system is tailor-made to meet the user's needs. This option

requires equipment, technological support, and program developers. The cost

of this option may depend on factors such as whether the user has a systems

area to do the tasks required or whether third party resources must be hired.

51

Given AEDIN's characteristics and needs, the best alternative was to hire an e-

learning platform already available in the market. For this purpose, four platforms were

analyzed: two “open source” alternatives (this is the name given to free software

available to the general public without property restrictions) and two “commercially

available” platforms. All the platforms had a low-maintenance cost and belonged to the

"hosting" type category, for which it was not necessary to install AEDIN’s software, and

it could be run from the service provider’s servers. This alternative proved to be more

economical and provided the technological support that AEDIN needed.

I organized demos of the 4 platforms and prepared a comparative chart to help

coordinators decide on the most convenient one. Finally, the one offering the best

combination of low-maintenance cost, visual design and easy updating content was

selected. The platform of choice was Moodle21, an open source course management

system (CMS) that is displaying a rapid growth in the corporate and educational market.

Postgraduate Course Design

Information Gathering. The tasks carried out during this stage were basically gathering

and reviewing the course contents and materials of the residential course and focusing on

the available data that could help define the context of the distance course more clearly

(for example: communication style, previous courses promotions, available technology,

knowledge of teachers and tutors, students' profile, etc.).

21 For more information about Moodle, see http://moodle.org/ or http://www.kineo.co.uk/kineo-

news-digest/elearning-guild-lms-report.html to learn more about platforms market share.

52

Program Organization: Preliminary Design. The program was based on a previous

residential version; therefore the definition of contents to be taught was relatively simple.

However, as the program needed a practical portion oriented to understanding the

practices involved in the treatment of patients, the contents needed to be reorganized and

exercises had to be modified to serve this purpose (Segura & Vaccario, 2004b)22. I had to

design new exercises that could be completed at a distance through video observation or

case reading. In the residential version of the postgraduate course, students learned to

work with patients as the program progressed, but this was not an option in the distance

version. Therefore, working with patients was postponed until the end of the course when

a face-to-face portion involving work with real patients was added to the structure of the

course.

The postgraduate program on Assistive Technology consists of 140 course hours

in which eight specialized teachers collaborate on different subject matters. The program

methodology was defined as blended learning and consists of the following:

• 100 hours of distance education classes (on-line lessons, digitalized

bibliography, Video CD’s.)

• 40 hours of face-to-face classes, condensed in an intensive week (practice

with patients and in the laboratory using assistive technology resources).

22 I based on my previous experiences in the reorganization of course content when converting a

residential course into a distance learning format (Segura & Vaccario, 2004b). The process can be

summarized as follows: present material organized in modules, lessons, or units; adequate to the defined

schedule; analyze content and exercises and change the sequence of those that need to be taught face-to-

face; design new exercises for virtual classes; and add evaluation criteria for virtual exercises.

53

The Assistive Technology Program lasts one academic year (6 months) and is

organized in three modules: a common module and two specializations. After completing

the specialized distance component, students take face-to-face practical lessons. See

Figure 4 to understand the sequence of modules of the program.

Figure 4. Postgraduate Program Modules. The diagram explains the

sequence of modules in AEDIN’s postgraduate program.

Each module is composed of several classes and each class lasts one week and

requires a student dedication of at least 4 hours. The common module contains 8 classes

and the specialization modules comprise 16 classes each. Each class is taught by an

expert teacher, who develops the coursework content, readings, case studies, and

exercises.

The common module, as its name suggests, is common to all students and has to

be completed regardless of the chosen specialization. Upon completion of the common

module, students are split into two groups: one group takes the course specializing in

54

Augmentative Alternative Communication (which is internally known as HOLA) and the

other group takes the specialization in Positioning for Function and Mobility (so-called

VOY)23. Students have to choose one of these specializations.

Participants complete the specialization module and then take a residential one-

week course at AEDIN. During this period, students analyze practical cases with patients

and complete their final evaluation.

The program is facilitated by a team of three tutors that provide support and

guidance throughout the course. Each student is assigned to one tutor in particular, which

makes for a more personalized follow-up. A set of guidelines is given to tutors and

teachers so as to prevent overlapping tasks and avoiding leaving important issues

unattended.

The criteria used to pass the postgraduate course includes an achievement grade

based on participation and completion of assignments during the distance learning period,

plus a final exam taken at AEDIN upon completion of the residential week.

The postgraduate program is oriented toward health professionals of varied

disciplines: doctors, physiotherapists, language therapists, occupational therapists,

educational psychologists, educational science professionals, special education teachers,

as well as specialists in orthosis and prosthesis. Such professional diversity constitutes a

very heterogeneous target group for which the course contents must be flexible. It is

worth mentioning that most professionals working at AEDIN are women, and a similar

23 The names HOLA and VOY are the Spanish words used to refer to the specialization modules in

Communication and Mobility respectively.

55

ratio is observed in the postgraduate program in which only 3 % of participants are men.

Instructional Design. Each of the 40 classes in the postgraduate program is based on the

same class model24: one self-study section that students have to do on their own and

another section that has to be completed in groups. Additionally, the model offers

ongoing support and feedback from teachers or tutors who are open to exchange

questions and answers.

Figure 5. AEDIN’s Class Model. Class Model applied to the case under study.

As we can see in the diagram, lessons comprise several sections:

• Lesson index: It includes an introduction specifying objectives and a guide

that helps the student browse through the lesson contents.

24 Note that the “class model” used as a basis is the one explained in previous chapters, and it has

been adapted for this particular project.

56

• Lesson content: Course materials are text based either displayed on screen or

uploaded in files, and they are designed to encourage a didactic interactive

dialog (Holmberg, 1981) between the text and the student. Icons and images

make activities more enjoyable while photos and pictures complement reading

assignments facilitating the learning process (Garcia Aretio, 2001). Consistent

with AEDIN's philosophy, the dialog is colloquial, open, and friendly.

• Readings: The bibliography is either digitalized and posted right on the

course's page or delivered in CD format.

• Inquiry questions: Questions encouraging reflections and opinions are posted

along the lessons to pause the reading and allow the student to consider the

practical application of concepts learned.

• Exercises: Practical work assignments are generally based on case studies, for

example analysis of videos showing patients with difficulties.

• Debates and opinions: Lessons have a collaborative portion consisting of

debates, posting opinions, sharing case resolution or answers to questions

asked by the teacher. Each lesson contains at least one forum topic for these

objectives and may have more than one topic depending on the lesson

contents.

Following the guidelines of the face-to-face program, we worked together with

each teacher to turn their classes into distance education lessons. The teacher, in his/her

role of thematic expert, facilitated the contents to plan the lessons on the basis of the new

learning model.

57

Introductory meetings with each teacher were scheduled to fill them in on the new

methodology, the implications of the design stage and information processing procedures.

Several sources were relied on in order to select the lesson contents: some teachers

contributed with explanatory texts of the topics and PowerPoint presentations used in

their classes. To complement the syllabus, teachers provided images and illustrative

video taped cases which were attached to the reading material and Internet links. These

videos were taped after the parents of patients involved signed a written consent which

was specially designed for that purpose. Additionally, the eyes of patients appearing in

pictures and videos were covered to conceal their physical features and avoid

identification.

During the previous year in the face-to-face version and in light of the launching

of the program's virtual version, coordinators requested students' collaboration to tape the

lessons. Students themselves were in charge of processing the tapes and writing the

contents in text files that were complemented with their own notes taken in class. Several

teachers relied on the taped classes to contribute with material, which in turn demanded

additional meetings to validate the texts’ appropriateness.

During the introductory meetings with teachers, I emphasized that every lesson

should contain an activity to facilitate content comprehension, which included reflection-

oriented exercises and submittal of assignments. Since my goal was to promote a fluent

interaction among students, I highlighted the importance of dialog, and therefore

suggested exercises promoting interaction in the forum (Baath, 1980; Holmberg, 1980;

Moore and Kearsley, 1996; Paloff & Pratt, 1999).

The teachers also facilitated mandatory reading material, which was digitalized

58

and posted along with the rest of the course contents. Additionally, teachers were also

requested to make a short colloquial presentation in an attempt to come closer to the

students.

The teachers’ learning curve was fast. Initially, our role as instructional designers

was very demanding; however, as teachers contributed with more lesson materials and

thought-provoking additional exercises, lessons were built upon previous templates.

Once the didactic design and content processing phase was completed the

material was published in the platform. At this point, we tested several attempts of visual

organization of material in the virtual space in order to keep class structure

understandable and easy to navigate by the user. This process required a re-organization

of some files in order to accomplish satisfactory navigation conditions. In the platform

class structure is displayed as shown in the example of Figure 6.

Figure 6. Class Structure in the Platform. Example and description of files

and links organization in a postgraduate class.

59

I selected a sample of exercises to show the use of icons and colors. Course

materials were designed using a specific icon and color for each type of exercise

throughout the course. According to Garcia Aretio (2001) frames are useful to highlight

text and break monotony. Likewise, icons are signals that help students to identify a

certain task to be completed (for example, reading, writing, reflecting, etc.).

To resolve

To reflect

To submit

To experience an feel

Figure 7. Sample of Exercises. Images that illustrate the use of icons and

colors in course contents.

60

AEDIN’s E-learning Culture

In this stage, I performed two tasks that were critical in order to create an e-

learning culture in AEDIN. I was responsible for training tutors in their new role as

learning guides and defining a communication plan for students.

Tutors Training. In order to develop online facilitating skills, tutors participated in

training activities to produce a shift from a lecturing to a guiding role that could promote

collaborative learning (Haavind, 2005). These training activities are intended to prepare

expert facilitators to guide distance courses as suggested by the Concord Consortium.

Tutors were invited to engage in training activities in order to get hands-on

experience in their roles of distance learning educators. I created a training space that was

used to post reading material that called for reflection on issues such as distance learning

components, the resistance to this methodology, tutors' roles, and communication media.

Three interaction forums were created for this purpose: one to reflect upon “hopes

and fears”; another focused on the “tutors’ action plan”, and a third one was created to

define “the postgraduate course rationale” (this one was oriented to more technical issues

such as approaches to assistive technology during the postgraduate course). I played the

moderator role in these forums, and my task was to collect information to design the

guidelines and premises of the postgraduate course.

I introduced the forum topic about “Hopes and fears” giving the following

directions: “I’d like to know about your hopes and fears regarding the postgraduate

course. Think about your fears, doubts and concerns, and identify barriers and

preconceptions you may have. At the same time, think about your expectations, desired

61

achievements and goals.”

Comments on the forum revealed that the use of technology was what participants

feared most. One of the tutors said that her fears as a distance tutor were “… using

internet, participating in forums, using new codes… Anyway, I think that the

technological barrier is going to disappear little by little”. Regarding the time tutors

should devote to students, they expressed “… I fear the fact of not being able to respond

to everybody’s communication needs”; “… I'm afraid of not having enough time to

perform my tutor role!" Comments did not reveal concerns about the course content

because tutors were familiar with the material.

On the other hand, tutors expressed their enthusiasm clearly shown by the

following comments: “I’m thrilled by the idea of teaching the course using this

methodology”; “There is nothing that can stop me…”, “I feel it's worth the effort, and I

love the idea of AEDIN’s becoming an Argentine regional leading player in the field.

These are my expectations.”; “Being where we are right now is already a great

achievement. I love challenges and we do have what it takes to face this one! We don’t

need to fear… we have a team to count on!”

Concerning the learning process and practical applications, tutors expressed their

concerns about factors such as “… teaching students to analyze cases without actually

being there with them” or “… being able to confirm that students could learn the same or

more than in the face-to-face program”.

In the “Action Plan” forum, participants described their essential tasks as tutors

and aspects to be taken into account. My task was to gather their comments and design a

topic checklist that tutors could follow to respond to students’ questions. The final action

62

plan used in the postgraduate course had the following 10 key points:

1. Empathize with students who are introduced to this methodology

2. Give frequent feedback

3. Summarize and draw conclusions

4. Encourage communication skills

5. Help students to fine tune and speed up processes

6. Encourage interaction with colleagues

7. Help students reflect upon lessons learned

8. Relate topics with previous ones

9. Participate in the discussion as part of the team

10. Encourage students to increase their production and push

knowledge forward

If we analyze the items included in the action plan, we can identify concepts that

many authors propose for the role of facilitators. All in all, the value of such an action

plan lies in the fact that tutors themselves, and in their own words, chose and defined the

key points to be emphasized.

I believe that the reflections made and the interaction observed in these two

activities in the forum (hopes and fears and action plan) were very enriching and

contributed to preparing tutors in their role as distance learning facilitators. Tutors also

had a chance to express their fears and weaknesses as distance learning educators. The

action plan also served the purpose of providing overall communication and interaction

guidelines that had to be followed throughout the entire program.

Finally, the forum on “course rationale" resulted in the creation of a document

63

describing the philosophy of the institution towards assistive technology. This document

was sent to students and posted on the platform.

Student Orientation. The bibliography consulted emphasizes the importance of creating a

set of guidelines, instructions and explanations that students could use to become familiar

with the distance learning methodology. These guidelines should inform participants

about platform basics and course navigation tools so that they can sort out the obstacles

imposed by technology. At the same time, forum participation objectives should be

explicitly stated. Participants need to become familiar with the rules and procedures

governing online interaction. Participants dialog can be encouraged as long as the

underlying reasons motivating students’ interaction are fully understood.

Considering all these factors, AEDIN launched a communication campaign in

order to introduce students to the postgraduate distance program. Such a campaign

consisted of a series of orientation guides and e-mail messages that were gradually

delivered to students starting weeks before the program began. The sequence of

informative messages was as follows:

• Message 1: Welcome message. This welcome message was sent a month

before the program started and it included the file attachment entitled: “What

is AEDIN's distance education program?” wich explained the distance

education study methodology.

• Message 2: Log-in information. The second message indicating username and

password was delivered the following week (that is 3 weeks before

64

launching). A file called "Step by Step Guide”25 was attached to the message.

The guide was a sequential explanation of the steps to access the platform and

how classes were organized.

• Message 3: A week later, a third message included an invitation to participate

in the forum. A two weeks period was granted to publish personal

introductions in the forum with in order to accomplish two goals: generate

bonds among students and enable the user to test the technology prior to

course start dates.

• Message 4: A fourth message specified the tutors’ role and assigned a

personal tutor to each student.

• Message 5 and onwards: Weekly messages announcing the posting of a new

lesson and reminders of assignments deadlines.

Once the course was in progress, the file document entitled “What do we expect

from forum participation?” was sent to all participants. The contents of the document

intended to explain to students the goals of interaction and promote an active

participation. It described how to participate by reading, responding, and taking risks in

the comments. Unfortunately, as reported by students in the focus group, this informative

guide had a negative impact since they felt they were being reprimanded rather than

motivated.

Community Set-up. It is worth mentioning that tasks developed in this stage, such as

preparation and delivery of messages and guidelines, creation of a space for personal

25 See Appendix 1: Step by Step Guide.

65

introductions, and the training of tutors in their roles as facilitators, generate community-

building instances that facilitate the establishment of a community among students.

In Chapter VI, I will analyze students´ perceptions on the postgraduate course on

the basis of results obtained from surveys, interviews, and observation.

66

Chapter V

Research Methods

This thesis is a qualitative study based on a combination of sources to collect

information that will further validate the data gathered. Three research methods were

used: observation of student participation in the discussion forum, surveys conducted by

the institution among students, and interviews with students.

a) Surveys: AEDIN conducted two surveys26 in the postgraduate program, one of

them upon completion of the basic module and the other upon completion of the

specialization module. The satisfaction survey contained questions about students’

perceptions of course design, use of technology, communication among tutors, teachers

and students, and overall scores among others.

Surveys were posted online and results were retrieved directly form the platform.

The response percentage was high for both surveys: 64% in the initial survey and 78% in

the second.

The surveys provided quantitative results since all questions had multiple-choice

options and there were no open questions allowing comments or suggestions. Most

questions had 4 possible answers: very good, good, fair, and bad, and some of them

allowed other options (for example: yes, no, not yet). Most questions were included in

26 See Appendix 3: Surveys’ Results.

67

both surveys for which the information gathered can be shown comparatively indicating

an increase or a decrease. In order to facilitate the exposure of results, I normally make a

reference to the average of both surveys. Some questions are not comparable because

they were asked only at the beginning to avoid redundancy or were added only to the

second survey.

b) Interviews: Taking advantage of the face-to-face week when all students

traveled to attend classes in Buenos Aires, I organized personal interviews with them. For

such interviews I used the focus group technique. All students were informed about the

purpose of this research study and invited to volunteer. I organized two focus groups with

8 students each on the basis of their willingness to participate.

Before the interviews, I devised a brief discussion guide27 with generative open

questions focusing on the topics of conversation (see detail below) in order to promote

interaction. The same guide was used in both sessions, and I took notes and recorded

participants’ reflections for further analysis. In addition, I prepared a text in order to

explain the focus group purpose to participants. I opened the group sessions as follows:

“The purpose of this focus group is to learn about your opinions and

perceptions of the Postgraduate Distance Program.

The focus group allows us to gather information through discussion and

participation. In general terms, our conversation will be based on a

guided questionnaire consisting of open questions. The moderator will

play a neutral role so as not to influence participants’ contributions (the

moderator must not give information or explain his/her point of view).

27 See Appendix 2: Focus Group Guide.

68

Regarding the focus procedure, I plan to take notes during the meeting. I

will also record the session in order to facilitate subsequent follow-up to

my notes and keep a record of all the data gathered. I will ask open

triggering questions that you may answer in any order as you would in an

informal conversation.

Since we have a limited amount of time to complete our tasks, I might stop

the debate and redirect the conversation in order to cover all topics.”

The topics of conversation during the focus group where:

• Factors taken into account in order to evaluate the course

• Perception of dialog and interaction among group participants

• Factors that encouraged or discouraged participation in the forum

• Aspects of interaction with peers that may be improved

• Aspects of the course that could be improved

c) Observation: Observation, also called data triangulation, is a valuable method

that validates the data gathered more accurately than do surveys and interviews in which

people normally tend to respond subjectively.

In this research work, observation resulted in the analysis of students’

participation in the discussion forum. In each class of the common module, I analyzed

students’ interventions in the forum and online activity instructions in terms of the degree

of participation they were expected to generate. I also monitored the reading of forum

posts, and interaction with other students/other posted responses. The reviewed sample

included 16 forums with open participation to all 60 students.

69

Research Limitations

Before the analysis and in order to avoid a biased analysis of the case, I identified

the limitations that could have affected the results of the study. Data gathered in

interviews and surveys could sometimes contain subjective perceptions and assumptions;

however, data triangulation reduced the risk of biased interpretations. Besides, there was

a possibility that people interviewed could feel influenced by the investigation’s type of

question and could therefore respond with certain tendency in favor of the course design.

In order to solve this situation, I explained to respondents that there were neither correct

nor incorrect answers, and that I would diminish my interventions during interviews to

avoid any possible bias. Validating students’ comments with survey results and forum

observations produced better data quality.

Furthermore, it was important to consider my own bias towards the study’s

results. I am a Distance Education Specialist, and as such I was hired by AEDIN to

develop this particular postgraduate course. Being responsible for the design team, I

could feel affected by negative results. However, the results were not negative and

allowed me to learn about improvements that could be introduced in future

implementations of the postgraduate distance course. Moreover, the lessons learned

contributed to increasing my knowledge as a specialist in distance education.

70

Chapter VI

Students´ Perceptions

The results of this study show students’ opinions regarding AEDIN’s

postgraduate distance course and their perceptions of forum participation. My purpose is

to reflect upon comments students made during the focus group experience, compare

them with survey opinions, and establish relationships with my forum observations. The

purpose of such comparisons was to detect whether students’ opinions and behavioral

patterns obtained through different methods go in the same direction or not, and analyze

the possible causes that may explain students’ perceptions.

A total of 68 students were registered in the postgraduate course and only 8

dropped out. Sixty percent of the students elected the HOLA specialization and the rest

chose the VOY module. Only 2 people of the group were men, one in each module.

In order to present the data, I grouped students´ perceptions in seven categories:

course evaluation factors, forum exchange, other communication medium, tutors’ role,

course community, and improvement opportunities.

Course Evaluation Factors

Students in the postgraduate distance program showed a high level of satisfaction,

the final survey revealed that 91% of students were “very” satisfied, and 9% were

“fairly” satisfied. Concerning course overall assessment, at the beginning 76% rate the

71

program as very good and 24% as good. As the course progressed, the number of “very

good” responses increased to finally reach 87% by the end.

In order to identify the factors that students’ took into consideration to evaluate

the program, I analyzed focus group comments as well as survey results. The focus group

analysis revealed that when evaluating the distance course, students mentioned three

principal factors spontaneously: content quality, practical exercises, and response time.

Students considered that content quality was the key determinant when evaluating

the course (12 students mentioned this aspect as the predominant factor). I should point

out that the content quality factor emerged spontaneously. It was not suggested on a

multiple-choice list; it resulted from the responses given to an open question. The

importance of this factor was also reflected in the final survey in which 94% of

participants rated content quality as "very good", thus this category got the highest

percentage score in the survey.

Other factors related to content were also mentioned by the focus group. Students

emphasized not only the quality, but also the amount of information. They also

highlighted the importance of recommended bibliography, which was crucial to those

living far away from the centers where more updated material is normally available. A

student stated the following: "when someone lives far away, it is quite difficult to have

access to new ideas, and as we all know AEDIN is constantly searching for new things

and makes a careful selection of the material.” Updated information was another factor

that students seemed to take into account. A student reflected his/her view in this regard:

"The material was updated, and bibliography was not redundant even for those working

in this field."

72

Additionally, students showed satisfaction with content clarity, and they

emphasized the course’s effectiveness in transmitting practical concepts in theoretical

terms. A student reported: "I wonder how they were able to reflect practical concepts by

means of something so theoretical as a text", clearly emphasizing the importance of the

hands-on experience component in the course.

As can be seen here, students spontaneously emphasized the importance of the

practical application of what was learned, and they highlighted the methodology used in

work-based assignments as another important evaluation factor. This issue also stood out

in the survey in which all participants answered that lessons learned had been very useful

in their daily tasks at work. In the last survey, 100% of students agreed that exercises

were useful for their daily clinical practice. Only 86% had agreed on this response in the

first survey while 14% answered that they did not know whether it was applicable. This

variance can be explained by the fact that at an early stage some students may be unsure

about the practical applications of the proposed exercises, and their perceptions might

change at the end when their knowledge is increased.

Another important aspect students pondered when evaluating the course was the

tutor's prompt response time in answering their queries (aspect that they had

spontaneously mentioned in the focus group). This finding is also supported by previous

research (Northrup, 2002): receiving feedback and prompt response is the most important

factor for students. In the survey, 55% of students (average of survey 1 and 2) indicated

that the average response time was between 2-3 days, and we may assume that this would

be an adequate response time span for students to feel satisfied. Students asked questions

either by e-mail or forum posts; however, they showed their preference for e-mail

73

questions because they felt that they could get even faster responses. Nevertheless, they

also stated that practical assignments were not returned as promptly, and as a result they

sometimes fell behind in their assignments. In this regard, a student expressed “The

answer of exercises arrived two or three weeks later”, “that was late” another person

replied.

Although course design did not spontaneously arise as a course evaluation key

factor in the focus group, comments validated by survey results emphasized aspects of

the course design, such as content quality and exercises. In addition, there was a specific

question in the survey regarding design and organization quality. This category was rated

as “very good” by 74% of students at the beginning and by 89% upon completion. This

variance may obey to several causes: students’ adaptation to technology, new features

introduced in the design, or the improved assistance offered by the academic team.

We should point out that the course design was subject to two important changes

that had an effect on quality and design. Such changes may have been the reason for the

higher rating in course design shown by the survey. On the one hand lessons, which had

been previously presented on web pages, were converted to Word document format to

facilitate the handling of files, such as document printing, which was a major concern

among participants.

On the other hand, the delivery of a CD that included bibliography had a positive

impact on the program since students were able to consult documents offline, shortening

connection times. The CD also contained videos of real case studies which had been

presented in text format during the first module and later converted into videos. This

multimedia enhancement, which allowed students to watch actual cases, made a

74

significant difference. According to Garcia Aretio (2001), the use of audiovisual material

improves the quality of the material to be presented since it facilitates the comprehension

of complex concepts, reinforces the concepts explained via other media, and motivates

students by reducing the complexity of written text.

Additionally, students’ perceptions of improvements in course design may also

indicate their adaptation to technology 28. In early stages, participants have to assimilate

the technology imposed by the new methodology, thus their efforts focus mostly on

sorting out technological barriers, clearing up doubts on distance learning education, and

overcoming isolation feelings and lack of autonomy. Analysis of the surveys revealed

that students became more adapted to technology as the course progressed since the

number of students who previously regarded the platform as complex or simple, ended up

considering it as "very simple” (the second survey shows a 9% increase in the number of

students who rated it “very simple”). Even though the technologhy used was the same,

the passing of time and students’ adaptation to technology made them perceive an

improvement in the technological environment, navigation, and access tools. In the focus

group, only a few comments were made either on the support platform or on the visual

format of the study material on screen, and participants concurred that the design was

good and the platform was user friendly.

28 A similar trend was observed in a previous case (Segura & Vaccario, 2004b). On this occasion, I

identified that technical difficulties appear early in the program (normally during the first three classes). As

such difficulties are gradually sorted out, students do not focus on technical aspects anymore, but on the

contents proper. Taking these facts into consideration, AEDIN’s program included opening lessons

requiring less content effort, and at the same time it enabled to test the technology in the first place, for

example, we dedicated two weeks were devoted to personal introductions through the forum.

75

Forum Exchange and Exercise Directions

In the survey, only 37% of students regarded the forum as a “very good”

information exchange tool; 54% rated it as “good” and 9% as “fair”. These results are

low compared to other aspects of the course. Focus group analysis, data from surveys,

and forum observation will help us to clarify students’ opinions.

All classes of the program included one or more debate topics in the forum, and

the specific directions given to solve the exercises demanded some kind of participation

in these forum topics. In this sense, students believed that: “participation was irregular”

and that “it all depended on the forums and on the topics posted.” An analysis of forum

discussions confirmed that student participation turned out to be variable. Some forum

activities reached peaks of 47 students out of the total 60 students, and others showed low

participation levels with just 11 comments. As an average, 53% of the students

participated in the forums as we can see in Table 1. Table 1 shows a summary of

students´ behavior in the forum, indicating responses and participation rates per forum

and per class29.

29 For more information on forum observation, see Appendix 4: Forum Observation Rates.

76

Class Forum Responses People Students % Students

participation Participation

per class

Participation hand-in vs. not hand-in

1 1 61 48 47 78.33% 60.83% 50.71% 2 32 27 26 43.33%

2 3 39 35 34 56.67% 56.67% 3 4 30 29 29 48.33% 48.33% 4 5 18 12 11 18.33% 42.78% 6 59 42 41 68.33% 7 37 26 25 41.67%

5 8 39 31 30 50.00% 57.22% 55.00% 9 68 41 40 66.67% 10 38 34 33 55.00%

6 11 39 32 31 51.67% 51.67% 7 12 59 47 45 75.00% 61.11% 13 35 33 31 51.67% 14 36 35 34 56.67%

8 15 29 29 29 48.33% 44.17% 16 37 27 24 40.00% Average 41.00 33.00 31.88 53.13%

Table 1. Forum Observation Summary. The table shows a summary of students’

responses and participation percentages.

Every lesson contained more than one forum topic consisting of an exercise with

a set of instructions stated in the lesson. A closer view into the lesson exercises and

instructions provided evidence to understand forum participation. The directions given to

complete the lesson exercises varied from one forum to another, generating different

reactions in participants and as a consequence a variance in participation percentages.

The following is an example of activities with high participation levels: the directions

given in lesson 1 instructed students to “participate in the forum mentioning other

participants…”. In this case, 78% of students responded to the post which showed the

highest participation rate among the forums observed. Instructions to a forum discussion

in lesson 4 demanded that students “post the resolution on the forum, read other

77

students' resolutions and interact as a group exchanging opinions", and in this activity

student participation was 68%. In class 5, in which directions instructed students to “post

the analysis on the forum and share results with mates", the participation ratio was 66%.

Finally, a forum discussion activity in lesson 7, which required that students “analyze the

case and post results in the forum”, showed a 75% participation.

Forums showing lower participation ratios were introduced through sets of

instructions such as: “make a comment in the forum", "give your opinion in the forum" or

"make a comment on the results in the forum”. In general, these forums scored a 51%

average participation or lower. We also observed cases in which directions did not

expressly require to make any comments for which they naturally showed low

participation levels. As an example, forum activities in class 4 and 8 reflected 18% and

40% student participation respectively.

Another factor that had an impact on participation levels was related to the

number and type of exercises included in each lesson. Apart from forum debates, the first

4 classes also included a case resolution assignment to be submitted. We may interpret

that this difference in the lesson structure was also reflected in participation levels which

reached an average of 50% in activities requiring the submission of assignments and 55%

in those which were solely based on the forum.

Summarizing, I may conclude that students’ behavior in terms of participation in

the forum activities varied depending on the directions given, on the number of exercises

contained in the lesson, and on the debate topic. An assignment requiring submission

may reduce students’ participation in the forum since students concentrated efforts and

time to meet the requirements of such assignment. In addition, I may also add that

78

students perceived case study activities as “mandatory” for which the directions given

were taken as more forceful than those demanding only an exchange of opinions.

Factors that Impact on Students’ Participation

In the focus group, students identified various factors that had an impact on their

participation. They stated that they were not aware of the rules in terms of participation

because they were beginners in the e-learning methodology (in the survey 86% of

participants expressed that it was their first e-learning experience). Some students

believed that they were supposed to participate in the forum just by giving an answer to a

question. Other participants thought that they would be evaluated on the basis of the

posted response rather than on the mere fact of having participated. As a result, they

answered questions overlooking previous responses that could have enriched their views;

thus, interaction disappeared. An important point was the wording of the directions given

to promote responses from students. As an example, a student mentioned an activity in

which participants were asked to read and reply to a specific person (the person who had

posted the last response) and in this particular case, she believed that there was a higher

level of interaction.

At some point in the course and in order to clarify participation rules, a set of

guidelines was delivered to encourage participation and interaction. In the focus group,

students experienced this as a “warning”; a red alert that was counterproductive. Even

though the academic team did not deliver this set of guidelines in a timely manner, the

preparation of this material revealed that the team was aware of its importance in

encouraging more interaction, and as the course evolved the team felt the need to increase

79

participation rates and generate a collaborative dialog.

Students thought that forum responses were repetitive, and given that participants

did not take previous answers into account when they replied, reading forum postings

turned out to be a tedious experience. They also mentioned that forum replies were

always written by the same people.

By contrast, other people believed that the forum experience was very enriching

because different opinions were given, and students expressed their agreement or

disagreement with other people’s points of views. One student remarked: “when I

reviewed the forum posts thoroughly, I noticed that some of them were richer than

others… I was sorry for myself because I felt that I had underestimated the forum as a

communication tool”. The diversity of professional backgrounds enriched the ideas

being exchanged and the different responses resulted in more learning. A few participants

were teachers or psychologists who contributed with opinions from different

perspectives. One of them stated: “… since our backgrounds are different, all opinions

are valuable, acceptable and enriching … we are always learning new things.”

According to students, another factor affecting communication was the lack of

response. In this sense, a student stated, “When you participate, you expect a response,

and if you don’t get one, you get discouraged.” Additionally, communication skills also

affected participation. In this sense, a student expressed “I was ashamed of participating,

writing or being read by others in the forum”.

As a rule, students who were behind in the learning process posted late comments

in the forum. According to other participants, these late interventions did not make any

contributions to the community since they referred to old topics that had already been

80

covered. Some participants seemed to be surprised when they learned that some of the

forums had been closed and discovered that they were not able to give their opinions;

others, on the other hand, thought that timely closing of forums was positive to avoid off-

topic late forum posts.

The time that students devoted to complete the tasks was a critical restricting

factor. The following are some students’ opinions about time constraints: “I didn't have

time to read.”, “Time was a real issue.”, “I felt constantly pressed for time.”, “Fridays

flew away.” (as a rule, classes were published on Fridays). Sometimes, lack of time was

caused by technological problems and there were some claims regarding operational

difficulties that lengthened connection time.

The technological aspect was another factor impacting on participation; both

Internet connection and home computer availability were critical. People who did not

have home access to the web had to go to Internet cafes and were not able to be online as

frequently as others (just once a week and forum participation was limited to that

moment.). Several people who did not have any access to Internet decided to hire a

broadband service during the learning process.

The size of the content files, either text or images, uploaded to the course was a

conditioning factor and students appreciated the warnings made in advance in this sense

which allowed them to evaluate downloading alternatives (when the size of files was

significant). By the course midterm and in order to overcome the problems of large

downloads, a CD (containing bibliography, video, and images) was mailed to

participants.

The applications installed in the computer proved to have some limitations.

81

Students had some problems at the beginning of the course because they preferred to

print the web page content for later reading and they found out that printing quality was

not precise. When the course began, text formats were simplified and converted to Word

for which the number of consultations dropped and access to the information was

optimized.

Other Communication Tools

Apart from forum discussions, the postgraduate program relied on other

communication tools. The survey included questions about the students’ perceptions on

the validity of such tools.

The postgraduate program had a specific e-mail account to contact tutors, a tool

that 57% of students regarded as “very good” at the beginning in survey 1 and 70%

assigned a similar rating by the end. We can say that the perception of email

communication with tutors improved throughout the course. In addition, if we compare

students' evaluations of forum discussions and e-mail messaging as communication tools,

we can observe a marked preference for the latter. An average of both surveys revealed

that 64% of participants regarded e-mail as “very good” while only 37% gave a similar

rating to forum activities.

Students’ preference for mail interaction over forum activities may be attributed

to several reasons. On the one hand, during the focus experience students indicated that

they would rather use e-mail as a communication tool because tutors’ intervention

shortened response times. On the other hand, unlike forum discussions, e-mail allowed

82

for individual feedback, and sometimes, students would rather not share their questions

with others. As Haavind (2005) suggests, students prefer to receive feedback individually

when their personal work is involved. E-mail also permits a closer knowledge of each

student and more personalized approach. All in all, we should always take into account

that e-mail and forum are complementary communication tools and each of them pursues

a different objective.

Additionally, as part of the student orientation campaign, every week students

received a message by mail in order to announce the beginning of a new lesson and

remind them of exercises and deadlines of assignments. Ninety percent of students

considered this reminder useful, which may imply that they demand ongoing orientation

throughout the learning process.

Role of Academic Team

Students gave different opinions concerning the tutors' role in encouraging forum

participation. A participant stated: “the role of the tutor is critical to start a

conversation. In some forums the tutor used expressions such as ‘very good Silvina’

which encouraged us to review certain things.” Another student said: “sometimes the

tutor used some words, phrases or key words that facilitated interaction”.

One of the students perceived that “in those forums in which tutors did not

participate so often, they interacted more...” The same student said that in some

exercises tutors made it clear that they would not give their opinions until everyone had

posted their comments. In this case, there was a higher interaction among participants. On

83

the other hand, a student belonging to the VOY group disagreed and explained that

students posted their replies only after the tutor had given his/her opinion.

Students also mentioned the difficulties in understanding the thread of the forum

posts in which interventions followed a certain line of thought and later changed direction

due to the tutor’s corrections. Some students’ comments in this regard were: “I had to

read a lot in order to catch up with new things”, “When the tutor said ‘I agree with such

and such a person’ I had to reread everything in order to understand what we were

talking about”, “Personally, I loved it. I was somewhat overwhelmed, though; when I

was reading class 5, the group was already dealing with class 8...).

Students who were not so familiar with the content chose another student as a

reference, for example people who showed a high level of participation and were highly

regarded by tutors. In this sense, a student reported: "When the tutor praised Susana, I

took her as a reference". At the same time, others expressed that tutors could discourage

postings by exposing students’ mistakes and preventing others from reading their

comments. A student said: “When the tutor said ‘Ines, you made a mistake’, I

immediately decided not to take Ines into account anymore”.

The ratings corresponding to the category ‘Relationship with tutors’ showed the

largest increase between both surveys. The perception of dialog interaction levels and

interaction with tutors showed an increasing trend: In the first survey, 67% of

participants regarded it as “very good”, percentage that increased to 85% in the second

survey. In addition, the survey asked to rate how warm was the relationship with tutors

and how clear was the information they provided. Both items were highly evaluated and

their rating improved throughout the course. The warm attitude of tutors was considered

84

very good by 82% of students and clarity in the information given was rated very good by

74% of participants (average for both surveys).

Forum observation revealed that interventions of tutors and teachers in forum

discussions were very uneven. There was an average of 5 to 6 interventions per forum

that accounted for a total of 92 interventions in the 16 forum activities under review. The

purpose of these interventions was basically to provide public feedback that mostly

addressed the content of students' responses rather than the way in which students

participated or interacted with others. In order to give feedback, teachers referred back to

students’ interventions in the forum. They indicated whether the posted comments were

correct, and if they were not, they made the necessary corrections. They also made

several comments in an attempt to encourage students: "I appreciate your commitment

and participation...", "I'm very happy to 'see' what you think... Thanks for sharing your

thoughts so naturally, it makes us all feel good". There was a fewer number of other

instances in which teachers asked students to refer to or reread previous comments that

tutors had posted: “Try again”, “I’ve already answered this question. Reread my

previous comments on this subject and restate your response.”

There were not many opportunities in which students were encouraged by tutors

to build-on mates’ knowledge. On one occasion, a tutor specifically thanked those who

contributed with “daring” responses in order to enrich the discussion. On another

discussion topic, the tutor replied: “If you really want to, you can go farther…”,

“Congratulations to all the people who participate, especially those who keep on

reflecting on the new questions and elaborating on them”. Only on three occasions did

the tutor propose a new question; however, it was never addressed again during the

85

discussion. In one of the replies, the tutor took the risk of presenting a different proposal:

“I’ll let you on your own to discuss other people’s responses so that you can correct

yourselves. I’ll only participate if you move away from the objective of the exercise."

There were very few postings in which teachers included a final comment to wrap

up or close the forum. This closing comment was regarded as a good practice by students

in the focus group.

As students got adapted to the new methodology, so did tutors, who learned from

the experience and applied the knowledge gained. Tutors also experienced and confirmed

the fears they had recognized at the beginning of the course30. Gradually, tutors overcame

these difficulties and came up with ideas to optimize the time invested in forum

moderation, handling of received messages and tutoring tasks. As students had stated

before, tutors also believed that forum activities were overwhelming given the amount of

information published.

We should take into account that AEDIN’s course relies on an academic team

who assists students throughout their learning process, and even though the tutor is the

key figure, teachers with expertise in content and technical support staff also play an

important role. Tutoring tasks are distributed among different professionals, and such

segregation can cause difficulties in the support given to students.

Going back to the theory, Llorente (2006) categorized tutoring functions in 5

areas: academic, orientation, organization, technical, and socialization; functions that

30 Before the course started, tutors did a training exercise in order to identify their hopes and fears.

Technical difficulties and time devoted to reading and answering forum posts were detected as possible

constraints.

86

AEDIN assigns to different people. AEDIN’s tutors performed three of these functions:

orientation, organization, and socialization31. The teacher was responsible for academic

issues and the technological support team was in charge of technical aspects. Two of the

tutors also performed the teaching function in tandem for which their functions were of a

blended type. Initially, such distribution of roles resulted in some deficiencies that were

resolved as the program progressed. Such deficiencies may have impacted on students’

perceptions not only of the tutoring role but on the teacher and technical staff as well. In

the survey, teachers and technical support personnel32 received lower evaluation ratings

than tutors did in terms of assistance; however, such rating improved considerably as the

course progressed.

Several weeks after the program began, a meeting with the academic staff was set

up in order to optimize course administration rules such as correction responsibilities,

grade reports, posting of conclusions, and progress assessment messages. Apart from the

orientation that tutors had received through training activities and the information that

teachers received through meetings held, situated learning and experience demanded that

they reformulate several tasks and responsibilities, especially those of administrative

nature.

31 Although they are not precise, we may associate Llorente's functions: orientation, organization,

and socialization with the three survey aspects involved in the relationship with tutors: assistance, clarity in

the information given, and warm attitude.

32 Teachers' performance was rated as “very good” by 48% of students at the beginning of the

course and by 74% upon completion. Technical support was rated "very good" by 60% of students at the

beginning of the program and by 70% at the end.

87

Course Community

Regarding the students’ community, I considered several aspects related to

students’ interaction and interpersonal relationships.

Participants’ overall perception was that there was not much participation among

students in the forum. A student stated "I thought there was no interaction. Students

posted their opinions, but did not read others' posts. They took it easy and did not get

back to the forum to read new comments or reply to others". Some students thought that

the purpose of forum posts was to respond rather than to interact. There were few

questions and the typical exchange of ideas that normally takes place when professionals

discuss case studies was not present.

Students also considered that intervention levels were higher in those forums in

which feedback was given by students themselves and that these forums seemed to be

more participatory (this is a reference to some exercises in which participants had

different tasks; some students had to give answers and others had to provide feedback to

someone in particular).

Through forum observation I noticed that interaction among participants was

minimal. Nevertheless, I may conclude that they had read their mates’ opinions through

their own replies to other students’ posts. There was an average of 6 references to other

posts per forum. Most of them were generic, and students had posted them to show they

had read other people’s posts or to express agreement. Some examples were: "I've had

the chance to read the comments...", "I agree with X's comments on...", "It's good to read

88

what my partners think about…”, “I’ll try not to repeat the concepts”, or “I’ll take more

chances…”

There were few specific comments referring to what another student in particular

had previously expressed (for example indicating his/her name), i.e. making a reference

to the previous comments such as "I read Laura's comment on ...". In one of the forums

there were several comments in which one student's intervention was mentioned by

another: “I feel identified with Paula’s comments on…”, “Paula: I really like what you

said about…”, “I share Paula’s view”. There was another case evidencing that students’

interaction was basically aimed at clarifying words of the local jargon of their different

countries/regions of origin. In this case students indicated the name of the person to

whom the question or response was addressed.

To sum up, I noticed that although interaction was rather low, students read their

partners' comments and made references to other participants' posts only when they felt

the opinion was worth discussing. In the other cases, they just made generalizations

indicating agreement with other participants' views.

In order to add value to exchanges made by the community members, we can

draw from the principles of knowledge building so as to redefine exercises and thus

encourage contributive student interventions. Scardamalia (2002) states that contributive

discussions should contain real ideas, i.e., authentic problems that may interest

participants, idea diversity in order to better understand other people’s diverse opinions

and idea improvement, thoughts that can be improved by humbly accepting one’s

ignorance and giving and receiving criticism.

Regarding socialization, the interpersonal relationship among course participants

89

was hardly ever mentioned in the focus group. Only two students stated that the

relationship with tutors was a significant factor when rating course satisfaction, and only

one student regarded the close relationship with mates as an element worth considering.

However, going deeper into the subject, students felt that there was an emotional bonding

and that they received a lot of support in spite of the distance. In the focus group a

student said: “There is an affective, emotional bond with tutors and the organization. I

think that this is a hard thing to accomplish in distance education.”

It can be said that the sense of belonging to a group was present in the forum

since a large number of posts were introduced with social greetings: “Hello everybody”

or “Best regards to everyone”. When students were consulted whether the group had

become a learning community, 46% provided an affirmative response and 52% stated

that they did not know. The assumption in this regard, is that students may not have been

familiar with the concept or the implications of belonging to a learning community and

that the concept of community should be clarified in order to more accurately elaborate

on this idea. Although, students in AEDIN’s program showed a sense of belonging to the

group, I believe that the group did not reach collaborative learning. Forum observation

demonstrated that interventions among students were minimal and there was no evidence

of built-on peer postings: my observations revealed that students had just read other

mates' comments.

To illustrate community evolution, we may use Salmon's (2002) Five Stage

Model of Online Teaching and Learning that distance learners must undergo: a) Access

and motivation: developing skills to use CMC; b) Online socialization: establishing an

identity to interact with others and developing an online culture; c) Information

90

Exchange: exchanging resources and developing strategies to process such information;

d) Knowledge building: group discussions, collaboration, exposure to diverse views; and

e) Development: Achievement of learning goals, integration of learning tools and

development of autonomy.

Salmon, like other authors, established the need to make gradual progress in order

to build community. In this sense, AEDIN’s community would be halfway in the

evolution process. The group was able to use the CMC efficiently as well as establish

liaisons and a sense of belonging as shown by the comments in the focus group.

Nevertheless, there was no evidence of the strategies used to handle the information

being exchanged, and even though there were group discussions, collaboration was

minimal and no knowledge building evidence was observed.

Additionally, communities doing collaborative tasks, known as learning

communities, concentrate efforts on the creation of a final product which helps students

to set not only learning goals but also performance goals (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999).

Such common production goal unites the group and helps to create community awareness

(Bruner, 1996). In our case, there was no group production goal established as part of the

design, which did not help students to make community efforts and set goals other than

learning together. Interestingly, participants in the focus group proposed group oriented

tasks in order to promote interaction. We may infer that the inclusion of an activity of this

type could have accelerated community evolution.

The role of the tutor also influenced community building. Reviewing the

academic team's expectations and the action plan, I noticed that suggested actions were

individually oriented rather than collaborative: “establish a smooth and personalized

91

contact”, “students should be able to analyze a patient without our help", "encourage

students to improve production", "be able to relate to previous topics", etc. Only one of

the items in the action plan mentioned group interaction: “encourage interaction with

colleagues”, and there were no other references to collaboration or knowledge building.

This review clearly revealed that tutors’ original goals were accomplished and

they probably needed more time to assimilate and feel comfortable in their roles as

distance facilitators before endeavoring the creation of a learning community. This

implies that not only students felt the need to grow within the community but also tutors

needed to mature in their roles before being able to introduce innovations towards the

achievement of a collaborative learning environment. Probably, several course iterations

are necessary before tutors are in a position to create and manage a collaborative

community.

Opportunities of Improvement

During the focus group experience, students contributed with ideas to optimize

the distance postgraduate program and to improve interaction among participants.

In order to manage their time more efficiently, some students decided to keep a

personal agenda with assignment deadlines and responses to be posted in the forum.

Based on their experience, students proposed including guidelines in the program which

could help them create an agenda to better manage study time and assignment deadlines.

Besides, they pointed out the importance of being able to anticipate the estimated amount

of time they would have to dedicate to each class and to the entire program, so as to be

92

better prepared for the demands of the course. It is worth mentioning that the overall

schedule for the program had been described in the course syllabus; however, these

comments suggest that such information was not enough and that a detailed description

of each class becomes necessary.

Some students proposed having bimonthly classes instead of weekly meetings,

whereas others believed that assignment deadlines were critical and even recommended

in order to accomplish their tasks. This was clearly revealed by the following comments:

“I propose a class every fifteen days so that I can organize myself more efficiently

completing one class and getting ready for the new one.", "A week was enough for me to

read and do the assignments even if I fell behind.”, “I believe that if you don’t push, you

don’t do anything; you have to push.”, “All in all, haste was very useful.”, “Some classes

should be combined and more time should be devoted to them.”

In order to foster interaction, students proposed teamwork and chat rooms.

Concerning teamwork, they would have needed to interact in small groups on a specific

task to facilitate knowledge sharing. They also agreed that scheduling chat times was

difficult, hence they proposed two or three sessions along the course rather than weekly

chat rooms. Summing up, they demanded opportunities to get to know each other and to

come closer to other participants, a situation which was clearly achieved during the face-

to-face week experience when personal ties were strengthened. A student stated: “Now I

feel I have someone to turn to.”, “When I don’t know, I simply ask.”, “It feels different.”

Thus, the idea of including a face-to-face component at the beginning of the

course would be ideal to promote interaction. Another student said: “If we had had face-

to-face contact earlier, interaction would have been richer, we would have felt more “in

93

tune” and open to share our experiences.” Students living far from Buenos Aires would

not be able to attend additional face-to-face meetings for economic and work reasons.

However, they expressed that a videoconference via an Internet resource such as Skype33

would solve the problem.

The bibliography consulted provides examples of other ways in which one can

accomplish a more collaborative interaction. Examples of these proposals are: the

creation of concept maps in groups, the cooperative construction of cases, or the creation

of discussion groups in which one of the students may act as a moderator (Arango, 2003).

Students themselves may also be asked to summarize the forum interventions, taking

turns to do this task, and playing a central role in each opportunity.

Students stated that the fact of having met other participants in the face-to-face

classroom week led them to think about the need to strengthen their relationship by

keeping in touch to share questions about their patients and discussing how to apply the

treatments learned; i.e. create an ex-alumni forum. This suggestion is also supported by

theory: to maintain a community working beyond the course provides benefits to students

and the institution as well (Brown, 2001).

33 Skype is a free Internet software for phoning and messaging. It enables to communication

through the computer as if you were over the phone. More information in www.skype.com.

94

Chapter VII

Summary and Conclusions

Summary Discussion

The purpose of my research was to analyze students’ perceptions about their

course satisfaction and group interaction in forum activities included in a distance

learning program. I should point out that the research was done in a particular context;

the distance learning program on assistive technology was taught by a non-profit

organization and course participants were health professionals possessing a solid

academic background. Results of this study were framed within such context.

Conclusions drawn from the data gathered indicated that interaction among

participants was rather low in the context of this organization. During the focus group

experience, participants were able to provide spontaneous comments: their overall

perception was that forum participation levels were uneven, and that there was very little

interaction among students. The survey revealed that more than half of the students

(54%) rated the forum activity as simply "good" as a group interaction tool.

My forum observations showed a similar low participation trend. On average, a

little more than half of the students (53%) participated in forum activities. A closer look

confirmed that student interaction among participants was minimal. Even though an

average of 41 responses were posted in reply to each forum topic, only 1 or 2 made a

direct reference to comments made by another participant. However, some replies clearly

95

showed that students read other participants’ posts contributing to a higher level of

interaction.

Participants did not spontaneously regard participation and interaction as critical

factors to measure course satisfaction. Even though students felt that the level of

interaction was very low, the survey showed a high course satisfaction ratio (91%). I

found that students believe that the principal factor leading to course satisfaction is

content quality, including updated bibliography and clarity in presenting content lesson

materials. The second satisfaction factor students report is the possibility of putting into

practice lessons learned throughout the course. Finally, the third factor students take into

account when measuring satisfaction is tutors’ and teachers’ response time, and feedback

on submitted exercises.

Some of these factors were validated by survey results in which content quality

was the highest rated category (94% - “very good” in the final survey). Exercises, as a

practical application of knowledge learned, were highly rated as well (81% -“very

good”). Course design and organization, which determined how content material was

presented, how modules were organized, which exercises should be included and how

interaction should be dealt with, also got a high score (89% - “very good”), confirming

the opinions students gave during the focus experience.

Concerning the practical application of exercises, we should highlight the

decision to have a blended format for the course. On the one hand, the distance

component in which real-case videos were analyzed provided practice throughout the

entire process, and on the other hand, the residential on-site practice with patients at the

end of the course validated lessons learned. However, we should note that throughout the

96

course, teachers can only perform a follow-up to case resolution and opinions, not having

the option to evaluate the practical applications on real patients until the end of the

course. If teachers could actually see students’ hands-on performance during the process,

they would be able to correct possible deviations beforehand. Galvis (2006b), in a case

study, proposes that students generate a portfolio containing videotapes of their own real

case application. Sharing this material with the group would allow them to exchange

opinions and help each other perfect their professional practice. This qualitative

enhancement in exercises demanding a practical application of lessons learned is a

research issue that deserves further investigation in future implementations since students

need to learn how to use more advanced technological tools.

Although interaction with peers was not regarded as a priority, students admitted

that personal ties were created in this learning experience. They also emphasized the idea

that more interaction was desirable because the diversity of points of view enriched the

course. For this purpose, one of their suggestions was to include activities that may help

students to get to know each other better and improve communication among

participants. In their opinion, alternative activities such as group projects, scheduled chat

sessions, and face-to-face meetings (in person or via videoconference) would facilitate

the exchange of ideas. Some of these suggestions are costly options since they demand

investments in high technology (videoconference) or represent high commuting costs

(face-to-face meetings). However, options such as group projects or chat sessions can be

implemented in future courses to test the increase in interaction levels.

In spite of the activities originally created to encourage community building, such

as a two-week period devoted to personal introductions in the forum, students requested

97

face-to-face meetings. Such a request made me reflect upon other virtual alternatives

oriented to community building that could be included at the beginning of the learning

process in future implementations in order to reinforce bonds among students. We may

consider the creation of differentiated virtual spaces (as suggested by the principles of the

Concord Consortium, Arango (2003) and Woods (2003)) such as forums focusing on

social exchange, content and technical support. All the classes at AEDIN contained a

forum for general questions and one or more content discussion forums. However, there

was no forum oriented towards social exchange.

As students had already reported, I also found that participation patterns in the

forum were uneven. Such variable patterns in participation levels were mostly related to

the set of directions given to complete tasks, as well as to the number/type of exercises in

each lesson. According to the forum observations, specific directions demanding more

from students (for example solving a case and posting the analysis) encouraged more

forum participation than activities requiring a simple exchange of opinions. Additionally,

the high number of exercises, especially those to be submitted, forced students to

lengthen the time invested in these tasks, and as a result the levels of participation in

forum activities decreased. Students felt that lack of time was also a limiting factor

leading to lower participation.

The case analysis allowed me to gain insight on factors that encouraged or

hindered student participation. Among others, I mention the following recommendations

to promote participation in future distance courses:

• Participation rules and guidelines: Participants, especially beginners in the

experience of distance learning education, should know the rules and expected

98

behavior in terms of participation. Disregarding such rules could raise doubts

on participation goals, and as a result some participants may not read other

people's comments. The fact of not reading other people’s posts generates

unnecessary repetitions which make reading and follow-up of the forum

difficult. Besides, awareness of rules and guidelines may encourage hesitant

students who are sometimes behind in posting their comments to catch up

with the rest. As a rule, these students would rather wait until other more

experienced students post their own opinions first.

• Exercise topics and directions: Directions guiding the resolution of exercises

should be specifically and clearly stated. The more specific and demanding

the directions, the more participation is achieved. Terms such as “resolve”,

“analyze” and “case” are recommended in order to encourage forum

participation. In addition, the topics of the exercises assigned, consistent with

Scardamalia’s principles, should be based on real problems, raise interest

among students, and generate a diversity of ideas open to further elaboration

and improvement.

• Technological requirements: Basic computer skill and software requirements

to take the course such as connection speed, previous knowledge, and required

software should be clearly specified in advance, and only those students

meeting such requirements should be eligible. These requirements will

prevent a digital breach that may favor some students and put others at a

disadvantage. Having similar technological conditions, students will have

equal participation privileges in terms of frequency and time. However, if a

99

democratic environment among participants is a desired objective, other

alternatives allowing equal access conditions to those having technological

limitations should be developed.

• Time constraints: Time is a limiting factor as far as participation is concerned.

To serve the purpose of achieving more participation, it is advisable to include

fewer exercises in each lesson, but these should be more focused on practical

applications of lessons learned and retain high quality standards. Rules for

forum posts (already mentioned) result in better organized forum activities

reducing reading times. In order to more efficiently manage their dedication

time in the distance learning course, students reported that they would rather

know class and program schedules in advance, and they recommend keeping

an agenda with deadlines. The institution might as well be involved in this

task to support students in this sense.

• Tutors’ role: The role of tutors, which was highly rated in the course, is not

clearly identified as a factor encouraging participation. While some students

believe that tutors are essential to improve interaction, others think that more

interaction is achieved when tutors do not take part. However, a conclusive

point among students is that lack of response from tutors does affect

communication. Consequently, we may assume that a prompt response from

tutors may become an essential factor to promote communication.

When selecting the communication medium it is important to remember that the

combination of different types of media is the most recommended strategy. As we could

see in the case studied, students prefer email to get individual feedback and personal

100

contact. According to students, forum activities are ideal for interaction with mates and

some Chat sessions are better to achieve a closer bond with peers.

Even though the course design included students’ needs in terms of orientation,

navigation guides, and participation rules, the absence of evaluation criteria

communicated to students became evident. Regarding forum participation, students were

not aware of the impact that their interventions could have in their grading, they did not

know whether posting forum responses on time were more important than posting new

inquiries or elaborating correct responses. The development of rubrics describing

evaluation criteria of forum participation would have allowed students to better

understand what was expected from them and what direction they should take. Besides,

tutors would have been able to rely on these concrete criteria in order to provide further

guidance and orientation in their feedback. Tutors followed the action plan guidelines but

did not use them as assessment criteria to evaluate forum discussions. Students, on the

other hand, were given a set of guidelines34 informing them about what was expected

from their participation in the forum discussions; however, as I have already said, this

information was untimely delivered to them.

Personally, even though I was aware of its importance, I did not consider

developing program rubrics for this project on the assumption that there was not a need to

do so because the institution was not using rubrics in the residential course and it was not

customary to rely on rubrics for courses developed in environments other than academic

ones (we should take into account that the organization implementing the program is a

34 These student guidelines directed students to read other people’s opinions and give answers

adding innovative ideas or asking new questions.

101

non-profit in which teachers are therapists belonging to several disciplines). Concerning

assessment of forum participation, there are some discrepancies among different authors.

Some of them believe that students should be free to decide whether to participate or not

(Shin, 2002) and that dialog should not have a predominant role (Gorsky et. al, 2004),

while others recommend defining evaluation criteria to assess forum participation.

Haavind (2005) assigns grades to discussion postings, specifically stating what is

expected from students: 10 points for initial comments, 10 points for adding new

information (for example sharing a website), other 10 points for replying to more than 2

participants. Webb et. al (2004) propose 3 levels of evaluation: PASS for valid

contributions (starting a discussion, replying to a relevant comment), MERIT for

references to an external source as long as PASS criteria are met, and DISTINCTION for

relevant comment added to that new source. Another example described by Galvis

(2006a) proposes taking into account five conditions to assess the contributions in an

online discussion: a title summarizing the content of the message, comments linked to

other participants’ contributions, thought-provoking ideas encouraging further discussion,

correct narrative, and contributions that enrich other people's comments.

A study conducted by Gilbert & Dabbagh (2005) shows how the use of online

discussion protocols evolved throughout four iterations of the same course in which

students were initially instructed to participate only once a week. The subsequent course

iterations incorporated participation guidelines and tips, and the last iteration finally

included detailed rubrics for each discussion. The inclusion of rubrics turned out to have

a positive influence since higher participation and meaningful discourse was achieved. As

in Gilbert and Dabbagh’s study, in the first distance version of AEDIN’s postgraduate

102

course we only used limited participation guidelines. In future implementations we could

include rubrics with detailed evaluation aspects on the basis of criteria used in the courses

described above. These rubrics should be accessible to students and academic teams, and

teachers should also have access to training to be able to provide guidance and assess

forum discussions.

Even though course design was oriented to accomplish a high level of dialogue

and knowledge building through student forum exchange, this experience led me to

understand that in addition to the factors students identify as promoting and discouraging

of dialog, there are other aspects that should support design. It would be naive to think

that by merely asking students to exchange opinions in the exercises knowledge building

would take place. A community of students needs to evolve gradually through successive

stages to achieve knowledge building.

Moreover, goals and philosophy of the academic team may limit the design scope,

and tutors’ expertise in their role will also be required to jumpstart collaborative learning.

Therefore, the academic team will have to go through a learning curve that will probably

require more than one iteration of the course in order to support a learning community.

All these reflections make me rethink the Start-up model used to design the

distance education strategy for the course, and they clearly show the need to reinforce the

concept of community in this Start-up model. I believe that the e-learning culture stage

should be more focused on the production of community building activities. We should

consider that community building is a gradual process and as such requires a scaffolding

structure until participants become more independent. Such scaffolding should take the

already mentioned concepts into consideration: differentiated forum spaces, tutors’

103

guides, activities fostering social exchange, activities in which students themselves may

take the role of moderators, or group activities, among others. Furthermore, the teachers’

learning curve should be respected to allow them to grow in the process and be able to

manage a collaborative community.

Conclusions

Students taking AEDIN’s course on Assistive Technology are professionals who

work and study at the same time, thus they suffer time constraints. For these students

group interaction is a desired goal, but not a requirement to measure satisfaction with the

learning process; consequently, this concept should be taken into consideration during the

course design stages. If the goal were to get high satisfaction standards among

participants, the institution would have to focus on content, practical application and

response time rather than on interaction.

In courses where fluent collaborative dialog among participants was pursued,

other factors should be taken into account to create a learning community: first, concrete

factors identified by students such as participation rules, clear task description, and

directions, as well as clearly specified technological requirements; and second, factors

that support community building considering that both students and teachers need to

gradually evolve in the generation of community. Course design needs to support the

stages that students need to overcome to accomplish collaborative learning. The design

should also consider the level of academic growth that teachers may experience and

support them in their own maturity learning curve so that they can successfully play their

roles of expert online facilitators.

104

The analysis of this case allowed for the identification of factors that can better

generate a distance learning community, and also promote exchange among students. The

inclusion of opportunities detected during the study in future iterations of AEDIN´s

postgraduate distance course and further analysis could lead to new knowledge of

students’ community in this environment. I cannot a priori apply the results obtained to

other courses and contexts; however, the question remains open for future investigators

who may want to extend the analysis and further examine student interaction and course

satisfaction in other fields.

Final thoughts

I started writing my thesis analyzing AEDIN’s case, a successful project in my

professional career, with the idea that when evaluating a distance course students

emphasized course content and other factors, rather than interaction with mates. In fact, I

was able to confirm this idea through the comments students made during the focus

group. The data gathered through the surveys was valuable, and the conversations held

during the focus group experience were enriching. The analysis of the case provided me

with more knowledge than expected, and allowed me to detect areas of improvement in

terms of participation and overall quality of the postgraduate program.

I found that reviewing the bibliographical sources after having obtained the

results was a very productive experience. It allowed me to go over the literature on the

subject from a different perspective and encouraged me to search for further information

to broaden my knowledge and support the study results. I especially tried to go further

105

into the concept of building community, which did not evidence good results in this case

study, in an attempt to find solutions to future experiences.

In order to develop the project, I used the Start-up model which I have been using

for several years in different organizations, and I have come to the conclusion that it can

always be perfected. In this case in particular, it was interesting to discover that the

model had some weaknesses in the community setup stage, hence I realized that more

activities oriented towards community building had to be developed. The insight I gained

from this experience helped me think of improvements for AEDIN’s future program

implementations and to perfect the Start-up model I intend to use in other organizations

that are exploring distance education practices for the first time.

For my final comments I would like to say that this thesis work, which involved a

complex process demanding a lot of effort and energy, turned out to be very productive in

the acquisition of new knowledge for my professional career. I feel that my reflections,

the insights gained, and the literature review helped me become a more specialized

consultant in the field of distance education.

106

Appendix 1 Step by Step Guide

This is an example of a page of the Step by Step Guide. Guía PASO a PASO para ingresar a la plataforma del curso

¡Bienvenido a nuestro Posgrado de Tecnología Asisitiva a distancia! Si recibiste esta guía ya sos parte de nuestra comunidad de alumnos del posgrado. El propósito de esta guía es indicar PASO a PASO el proceso de ingreso al entorno virtual donde están los materiales del posgrado.

1 - Web

El Posgrado de Tecnología Asisitiva está ubicado en la siguiente dirección de Inernet:

• aedin.aulainstitucional.com.ar

2 – Portal de entrada

Tipeando esta dirección podrás ingresar al portal de entrada de la plataforma, que se ve como la siguiente imagen. Observá las 2 partes de la pantalla que están explicadas en la imagen.

3 – Registrarse

Para ingresar, hacelo a través del recuadro central y te pedirá usuario y clave porque esté es un curso con acceso restringido a alumnos. La pantalla de registro es la siguiente:

107

Appendix 2 Focus Group Questionnaire Guide

1. Which factors did you take into account in order to evaluate the course?

2. The discussion forum is the place where you interact with peers and exchange

ideas; it's where the actual dialog takes place. How do you perceive dialog among

group participants? How do you perceive this group interaction?

Do you believe interaction is stable or variable? If you think interaction is

variable, do you feel it increases or diminishes as the course advances?

3. Which factors encourage participation in the forum? Which ones discourage

participation in the forum?

4. In the forum, members may engage in one/several tasks: complete the exercises,

read peers’ comments or answer peers’ comments and interact. We are going to

focus on interaction with others: Which aspects of interaction with peers may be

improved and how?

5. Finally, which aspects of the course could be improved? Mention strengths and

weaknesses (opportunities of improvement).

108

Appendix 3 Surveys’ Results

The following table shows complete results of both surveys.

Is the first time you study at a distance? Yes No

Survey 1 86% 14%

DESIGN How do you evaluate the design and organization of the course? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 74% 24% 2% 0% Survey 2 89% 9% 2% 0%

How do you consider content quality? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 81% 19% 0% 0% Survey 2 94% 6% 0% 0%

How do you consider the quantity of contents? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 2 85% 15% 0% 0%

Do you think that exercises and assignments were useful to reinforce learning? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 83% 17% 0% 0% Survey 2 81% 19% 0% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 82% 18%

How do you consider due date of exercises and assignments? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 2 34% 57% 9% 0%

109

Do you think exercises were useful for application in your professional work? Yes No

Not know but probably in the future

Survey 1 86% 0% 14% Survey 2 100% 0% 0%

ACCESS How do you evaluate platform navigation and access? Very simple Simple Complex

Very Complex

Survey 1 31.0% 59.5% 9.5% 0% Survey 2 40.4% 55.3% 4.3% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 36% 57%

How frequently did you access to the course? One a week

Twice a week

3 times per week

4 times per week

5 times per week Every day

Survey 1 7% 33% 33% 10% 10% 7% Survey 2 19% 32% 28% 13% 2% 6% Average Survey 1 & 2 13% 32% 30% 11% 6% 7%

What was you location when you accessed? Home Work Cyber

Survey 1 83% 7% 10%

What kind of Internet connection do you have?

Broadband connection

Slow connection

Survey 2 54% 46%

How would you classify you technological skills? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 2 21% 49% 30% 0%

110

What was your preference?

Read through the

screen Print Both Survey 1 2% 81% 17%

COMMUNICATION How do you evaluate the forum as a medium of exchange? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 36% 55% 10% 0% Survey 2 38% 53% 9% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 37% 54% 9% 0%

How often did you participate in the forum? Very often

From time to time

Only when required Not often

Survey 2 6% 53% 21% 19%

How often did your mates participate in the forum? Very often

From time to time Not often

Survey 2 41% 52% 7%

How do you evaluate the email account to contact tutors? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 57% 26% 14% 0% Survey 2 70% 28% 0% 2% Average Survey 1 & 2 64% 27%

Do you think messages sent before each class were useful? Yes No

Survey 1 90% 10% Survey 2 89% 11%

TEAM How would you evaluate dialogue and interaction with tutors? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 67% 29% 5% 0% Survey 2 85% 13% 2% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 76% 21%

111

How would you evaluate warmth in the relationship with tutors? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 71% 24% 5% 0% Survey 2 94% 6% 0% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 82% 15%

How would you evaluate clarity in the information provided by tutors? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 67% 29% 5% 0% Survey 2 81% 19% 0% 0% Average Survey 1 & 2 74% 24%

What was the average response time of tutors? daily 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more

Survey 1 12% 64% 10% 14% Survey 2 28% 55% 15% 2% Average Survey 1 & 2 20% 60% 12% 8%

How would you evaluate teacher role? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 48% 43% 7% 0% Survey 2 74% 26% 0% 0%

How would you evaluate technological support staff? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 60% 33% 7% 0% Survey 2 77% 23% 0% 0%

Do you think the group became a learning community? Yes No I don't know

Survey 2 46% 2% 52%

GENERAL How would you evaluate the postgraduate course? Very good Good Fair Bad

Survey 1 76% 24% 0% 0% Survey 2 87% 13% 0% 0%

112

Are you satisfied with the postgraduate course?

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Slightly satisfied Unsatisfied

Survey 2 91% 9% 0% 0%

113

Appendix 4 Forum Observation Rates

The following table shows complete forum observation data.

Class Forum Responses People Students % students

participation Participation

per class Tutors/

Teachers

Tutors or Teachers

interventions

Students that response more than

once References to others

Generic references

Specific references

1 1 61 48 47 78,33% 60,83% 1 4 7 3 1 2 2 32 27 26 43,33% 1 4 3 18 12 6 2 3 39 35 34 56,67% 56,67% 1 2 2 18 13 5 3 4 30 29 29 48,33% 48,33% 0 0 1 10 9 1 4 5 18 12 11 18,33% 42,78% 1 6 1 4 1 3 6 59 42 41 68,33% 1 9 5 3 1 2 7 37 26 25 41,67% 1 8 4 2 1 1 5 8 39 31 30 50,00% 57,22% 1 3 3 1 1 0 9 68 41 40 66,67% 1 24 2 4 4 0 10 38 34 33 55,00% 1 4 1 7 5 2 6 11 39 32 31 51,67% 51,67% 2 9 0 5 5 0 7 12 59 47 45 75,00% 61,11% 2 7 5 1 1 0 13 35 33 31 51,67% 1 2 1 5 3 2 14 36 35 34 56,67% 1 2 0 4 4 0 8 15 29 29 29 48,33% 44,17% 0 0 0 5 2 3 16 37 27 24 40,00% 3 8 3 9 9 0

Average 41,00 33,00 31,88 53,13% 1,13 5,75 2,38 6,19 4,50 1,69

114

Bibliography

Arango, M. L. (2003). Foros virtuales como estrategia de aprendizaje. Revista Debates

Latinoamericanos, 2 (1).

Baath, J. (1980). Postal Two-Way Communication in Correspondence Education.

Gleerup, Glund. In D. Keegan (1986). Foundations of distance education. London:

Routledge Farmer.

Bielaczyc, K. & Collins, A. (1999). Learning Communities in Classrooms: A

Reconceptualization of Educational Practice. Instructional-Design Theories and

Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2.

Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2).

Chang, S. L. (2001). What types of online facilitation do students need? 2001 Annual

Proceedings of Association for Educational Communications and Technology in

Atlanta, Georgia, 2, 494-502.

Chen, Y. (2001). Dimensions of transactional distance in the world wide web learning

environment: a factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (4),

459-470.

Chute, A., Thompson, M. & Hancock, B. (1999). The McGraw-Hill Handbook of

Distance Learning. New York: McGraw Hill Companies Inc.

115

Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S. & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning.

Effective strategies for moderators”. Madison: Atwood Publishing.

Craig, T. & Laserna, C. (2002). Distance Education Course and Program Evaluation for

Academic Year 2000-01. Draft report prepared for Harvard Extension School.

Davies A., Ramsay, J., Lindfield H. & Couperthwaite J. (2005). Building learning

communities: foundations for good practice. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 36 (4), 615–628.

Galvis, A. (2006a). Aportes a discusiones en la red que cumplen con los criterios Tigrres.

Retrived October 20, 2007, from http://aportetigre.blogspot.com/

Galvis, A. (2006b). Lights, Camera, Action: Videotaping Teachers for Professional

Development. Retrived October 20, 2007, from

http://www.concord.org/publications/newsletter/2006-spring/video.html

Garcia Aretio, L. (2001). La educación a distancia: de la teoría a la páctica. Barcelona:

Ariel Educación.

Gilbert P. K. & Dabbagh N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful

discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (1), 5-18.

Gorsky, P. & Caspi, A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Transactional Distance Theory.

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6 (1), 1-11.

Haavind, S. (2005). Tapping Online Dialogue for Learning: A grounded Theory

Approach to Identifying Key Heuristics that Promote Collaborative Dialogue

among Virtual Learners. Reprinted from the E-Learn 2005 Conference

Proceedings, with permission of AACE (http://www.aace.org).

116

Haavind, S., Rose, R., Galvis, A. & Tinker, R. (2002). Online courses that work…and

some that don’t. The Concord Consortium, 6 (1).

Hillman, D.C., Willis, D. J. & Gundawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interfase interaction in

distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for

practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education. 8 (2), 30-42. In M. S.

McIsaac, J.M Blocher, V. Mahes & Ch. Vrasidas. Student and Teacher Perceptions

of Interaction in Online Computer-Mediated Communication. Educational Media

International, 36 (2), 121-31.

Holmberg, B. (1981) Status and Trends of Distance Education. London: Croom Helm. In

M. Moore & G. Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a systems view. Belmont:

Wadsworth.

Horton, S. (2000). Web teaching guide. London: Yale University Press.

Huang, H. (2002). Student perceptions in an online mediated envirnoment. International

Journal of Instructional Media, 29 (4).

Katz, R. & Associates. (1999). Dancing with the Devil - Information Technology and the

New Competition in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Katz, Y. J. (2002) Attitudes affecting colege students’ preferences for distance learning.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18 (2-9).

Ke, F. (2004). Forming Virtual Learning Community within Online Course: Students’

Perspectives. Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Keegan, D. (1986). Foundations of distance education. London: Routledge Farmer.

117

Koschmann, T. D. (1993-1994). Introduction: Toward a Theory of Computer Support for

Collaborative Learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3) 219-225.

LaPointe, D.K. & Gunawardena, Ch. N. (2004). Developing, Testing and Refining of a

Model to Understand the Relationship Between Peer Interaction and Learning

Outcomes in Computer-Mediates Conferencing. Distance Education, 25 (1).

Litwin, E. (1995). Tecnología Educativa. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidós.

Llorente Cejudo, M. C. (2006). El tutor en e-learning: asepctos a tener en cuenta. Edutec.

Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa. 20. (Enero 06).

Lobry de Bruyn, L. (2004). Monitoring Online Communication: Can the development of

convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment?

Distance Education, 25 (1).

Lugo, M. T. & Schulman, D. (1999). Capacitación a distancia: acercar la lejanía.

Buenos Aires: Ed. Magisterio Río de la Plata.

Marques de Oliveira, S. (2001). Evaluation of a Distance Education Program Offered by

the Graduate School of Systems Analysis of the Pontificia Universidades Católica

de Campinas. Colabora Curtiba, 1 (1), 4-11.

Marturet, M. M. (1999). Educación a distancia. Buenos Aires: Ed. Marymar.

Maxwell, J.A. (1994). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. California:

Sage Publications.

McIsaac M.S., Blocher, J.M., Mahes, V. & Vrasidas, Ch. (1999). Student and Teacher

Perceptions of Interaction in Online Computer-Mediated Communication.

Educational Media International, 36 (2), 121-31.

118

Mena, M. (1987). Nuevas estrategias y nuevas tecnologías de comunicación en

Educación a Distancia. Asociación Argentina de Educación a Distancia. UNESCO-

OEA.

Moore, M. (1989). Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance

Education, 3 (2), 1-6.

Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a systems view. Belmont:

Wadsworth.

Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: a systems view (2nd ed.).

Belmont: Wadsworth.

Norman, D. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart . MA: Addison-Wesley Reading.

Northrup, P. (2002). Online Learners’ preferences for Interaction. The Quarterly Review

of Distance Education, 3 (2). 219-226.

Padula Perkins, J. E. (2007). Contigo a la distancia. El rol del tutor en la educación no

presencial. Universidad del Salvador.

Paloff, R. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in Cyberspace. Jossey-Bass,

San Francisco. In D.R. Garrison and T. Anderson (2003). E-learning in the 21st

Century. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Pavey J. & Garland S. W. (2004). The integration and implementation of a range of ‘e-

tivities’ to enhance students’ interaction and learning. Innovations in Education and

Teaching International, 4 (3).

Poole, D.M. (2002). Student Participation in a Discussion-Oriented Online Course: A

Case Study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33 (2).

119

Richardson, B. & Cooper, N. (2003). Developing a virtual interdisciplinary research

community in higher education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 17 (2).

Santilli, S. & Beck, V. (2005). Graduate Faculty Perceptions of Online Learning. The

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3 (2), 155-160.

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of

knowledge. In Liberal education in a knowledge society, ed. B. Smith. Chicago:

Open Court. (Access online: http://ikit.org/fulltext/2002CollectiveCog.pdf)

Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building. Journal of Distance Education, 17 (Suppl.

3, Learning Technology Innovation in Canada), 10-14.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. Encyclopedia of education

(2nd ed). 1370-1373.

Schreiber, D. & Berge, Z. (1998). Distance training. Jossey – Bass Publishers.

Segura, E. & Vaccario, C. (2004a). ¿Cómo poner en marcha una estrategia de e-learning?

Virtual Educa Barcelona.

Segura, E. & Vaccario, C. (2004b). De la presencialidad a la semipresencialidad: análisis

de la transformación de un curso de nivel universitario. Latineduca 2004.

Shin, N. (2002). Beyond Interaction: the relational construct of Transactional Presence.

Open Learning, 17 (2).

Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Allyn and

Bacon, Boston. In L. Garcia Aretio. (2001). La educación a distancia: de la teoría a

la páctica. Barcelona: Ariel Educación.

120

Soomyung, K. & Berge, Z.(2002). Overcoming barriers to distance training and

education. Education at a Distance – the USDLA Journa. 16 (1). Retrieved

February 8, 2002, from

http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN02_Issue/article01.html.

Stanton, S. (2001). Going distance: Developing shared web-based learning programmes.

Occupational Therapy International, 8(2), 96–106.

Uñantes, G; Reynoso, E. & Brescia, M. (2004). E-learning: cambiando paradigmas en

capacitación. Retrieved May 22, 2004, from

http://www.elprincipe.com/teleformacion/notas/index14.shtml

Webb, E., Jones, A., Barker, P. & van Schaik, P. (2004). Using e-learning dialogues in

higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41 (1).

Wegerif, R. (1998). The Social Dimension of Asynchonous Learning Networks. Journal

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2 (1).

White, C. (2000). Learn Online. T H E Journal, 27 (9).

Woods, R. (2003). Becoming a “Communal Architect” in the Online Classroom-

Integrating Cognitive and Affective Learning for Maximum Effect in Web-Based

Learning. Online Journal of Distance Administration, 3 (1).